US v. Larry Holmes, No. 13-4027 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4027 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LARRY JUNIOR HOLMES, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, WinstonSalem, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(2) (2011). A defendant seeking a under U.S. We affirm. Guidelines reduction mitigating circumstance has the burden of proof. v. Urrego-Linares, 879 F.2d 1234, Sentencing 1238-39 for a United States (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. presented to contradictory. establish that However, the testimony he fact, including his own, was 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 purpose reduction. 2 to the lawful sporting We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
