United States v. Larry Holmes

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4027
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LARRY JUNIOR HOLMES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:12-cr-00160-NCT-1)
Submitted: August 22, 2013 Decided: August 26, 2013
Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Andrew C.
Cochran, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-
Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Junior Holmes pled guilty to possession of
ammunition by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006),
and was sentenced to a term of thirty months’ imprisonment.
Holmes appeals his sentence, contending that the district court
clearly erred in finding that he did not possess the ammunition
solely for lawful sporting purposes under U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(2) (2011). We affirm.
A defendant seeking a Guidelines reduction for a
mitigating circumstance has the burden of proof. United States
v. Urrego-Linares, 879 F.2d 1234, 1238-39 (4th Cir. 1989).
Holmes maintained at his sentencing that he had not possessed
firearms since 2009 and that all the ammunition found in his
residence in the course of two searches was old and had been
possessed solely for deer hunting. However, the testimony he
presented to establish that fact, including his own, was
contradictory. Moreover, the government presented evidence that
Holmes had possessed firearms which he removed from his house
just before it was searched, and that he threatened a neighbor
with a handgun after the first search. We conclude that, based
on this evidence, the district court did not clearly err in
finding that Holmes was not entitled to the lawful sporting
purpose reduction.
2
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
3