US v. Samuel Holloman
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00246-WO-1. Copies to all parties and the district court .. [16-4144]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
SAMUEL EUGENE HOLLOMAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:15-cr-00246-WO-1)
January 18, 2017
February 9, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dhamian A. Blue, BLUE LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
Samuel Eugene Holloman appeals his conviction and sentence
for possessing with intent to distribute a mixture containing
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2012), and being a felon in possession
of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)
agreement, and the district court sentenced him to 168 months’
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
Holloman’s waiver of his right to appeal, but questioning three
supplemental pro se brief after receiving notice of his right to
do so, and the Government elected not to respond to the Anders
Although Holloman’s plea agreement contained an appellate
waiver, the Government has not sought to enforce it in this
Thus, we review the record as required by Anders.
United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 2007)
(“If an Anders brief is filed, the government is free to file a
responsive brief raising the waiver issue (if applicable) or do
Pg: 3 of 4
In the Anders brief, counsel, while expressing his belief
that the appeal waiver bars the appeal, questions the district
court’s denial of Holloman’s motion to suppress, calculation of
the drug quantity for sentencing, and enhancement of Holloman’s
sentence for maintaining a premises to manufacture or distribute
a controlled substance.
Holloman waived any appeal based on his
motion to suppress because he did not enter a conditional plea
preserving the right to appeal that issue.
See United States v.
Bowles, 602 F.3d 581, 582 (4th Cir. 2010).
Counsel’s arguments against Holloman’s sentence also fail.
responsible for at least the drug quantity attributed to him.”
United States v. Kiulin, 360 F.3d 456, 461 (4th Cir. 2004).
particular, the district court credibly linked seized currency
currency into heroin weight when calculating the drug quantity.
See United States v. Sampson, 140 F.3d 585, 592 (4th Cir. 1998).
court’s decision for plain error because Holloman did not object
person who appeared to receive orders from Holloman regarding
Pg: 4 of 4
facts indicate Holloman controlled the illicit activities at the
premises, the district court did not plainly err when it applied
the premises enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual
§ 2D1.1(b)(12), cmt. n.17 (2015).
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
This court requires that counsel inform Holloman, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
If Holloman requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Holloman.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?