US v. Quenton Holman, No. 13-4861 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4861 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. QUENTON DAMON HOLMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:12-cr-00203-JAB-1) Submitted: July 25, 2014 Before NIEMEYER Circuit Judge. and DIAZ, Decided: Circuit Judges, and August 28, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William J. Stevens, Bridgman, Michigan, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Rebecca Fitzpatrick, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Quenton Damon Holman pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to possession with intent to distribute forty-three grams of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). Holman appeals the ninety-two-month sentence imposed upon resentencing, arguing that the district court erred by failing to make specific findings of fact to support the four-level enhancement based on his possession of a firearm in connection with another felony offense. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ( USSG ) § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) (2012). We review a sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). In determining procedural other reasonableness, we consider, among factors, whether the district court properly calculated the Guidelines range. Id. Generally, in reviewing the district court s Guidelines calculations, we review the district court s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). object to the application of Because Holman failed to the USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement in the district court, however, we review his claim 2 for plain error. United States v. Carthorne, 726 F.3d 503, 509 (4th cert. Cir. 2013), Henderson v. United denied, States, (explaining plain error). Pursuant sentencing court to 133 S. S. Ct. Ct. R. accept Crim. ( PSR ), objects in the to 1121, any P. (2014); 1126 see (2013) a absence finding of in an 32(i)(3)(A), undisputed presentence report as a finding of fact. defendant 1326 We find no such error. Fed. may 134 portion of the the Moreover, even if a the presentence affirmative showing report that the information is not accurate, the court is free to adopt the findings of the presentence report without more specific inquiry or explanation. United States v. Love, 134 F.3d 595, 606 (4th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Given Holman s related failure failure to to object to affirmatively the show enhancement that the and PSR his was inaccurate, we conclude that there is no error, let alone plain error, in the district court s reliance on the PSR and failure to make specific findings of fact. Moreover, to the extent Holman argues that the facts of his case did not justify the district court s application of the USSG § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement, we disagree. factual basis on which the probation officer The written relied in describing the offense conduct in the PSR and to which Holman 3 did not object was more than sufficient to support the enhancement. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
