United States v. Samuel Holloman , 679 F. App'x 256 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4144
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
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)
Submitted: January 18, 2017 Decided: 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Eugene Holloman appeals his conviction and sentence
for possessing with intent to distribute a mixture containing
100 grams or more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 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)
(2012). Holloman pleaded guilty through a written plea
agreement, and the district court sentenced him to 168 months’
imprisonment. On appeal, Holloman’s counsel filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
that he found no meritorious issues for appeal because of
Holloman’s waiver of his right to appeal, but questioning three
aspects of the proceeding below. Holloman did not file a
supplemental pro se brief after receiving notice of his right to
do so, and the Government elected not to respond to the Anders
brief.
Although Holloman’s plea agreement contained an appellate
waiver, the Government has not sought to enforce it in this
case. Thus, we review the record as required by Anders. See
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
nothing, allowing this court to perform the required Anders
review.”).
2
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.
The preponderance of the evidence shows that Holloman “was
responsible for at least the drug quantity attributed to him.”
United States v. Kiulin, 360 F.3d 456, 461 (4th Cir. 2004). In
particular, the district court credibly linked seized currency
to the sale of heroin and therefore properly converted the
currency into heroin weight when calculating the drug quantity.
See United States v. Sampson, 140 F.3d 585, 592 (4th Cir. 1998).
For the premises enhancement, we review the district
court’s decision for plain error because Holloman did not object
to the enhancement at sentencing. See United States v.
Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012). Police found
Holloman inside the premises without the owner, but with a
person who appeared to receive orders from Holloman regarding
the drugs and paraphernalia inside the home. Because those
3
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).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
This court requires that counsel inform Holloman, in writing, of
the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. 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
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Holloman.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4