United States of America v. Quenton Damon Holman

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-4211
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. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:22-cr-00023-WO-1)
Submitted: May 20, 2024 Decided: July 24, 2024
Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: James B. Craven, III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J.
Hairston, United States Attorney, Margaret M. Reece, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Quenton Damon Holman appeals from his conviction for one count of being a felon
in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and his sentence of 102
months’ imprisonment for that offense. On appeal, Holman has raised multiple challenges
to his conviction and sentence, including, inter alia, that: (1) the district court erred in
denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from his crossbody bag and a Hyundai
passenger car; (2) evidence was fabricated against him at trial and also improperly
destroyed after his conviction, in violation of his constitutional rights; (3) trial counsel
provided ineffective assistance; and (4) the district court erroneously applied an obstruction
of justice enhancement, U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, when calculating his advisory Sentencing
Guidelines range.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.1 Accordingly, we affirm.
In addition, we deny Holman’s pending pro se motions.2 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 in the decisional process.
1 Holman also asserts the district court erred by relying on dismissed felony charges
to support a Guidelines enhancement for relevant conduct under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Because
imposition of that enhancement was not clearly erroneous under the applicable Guidelines
provisions, we affirm. We acknowledge that the United States Sentencing Commission has
announced amendments to the Guidelines that may redefine “relevant conduct.” However,
those amendments are not yet in effect and so they have no bearing on our review. See
United States v. Banks, 104 F.4th 496, 525 n.10 (4th Cir. 2024).
2 Although we deny Holman’s motions to proceed pro se, we previously allowed
him to file a pro se brief despite being represented by counsel and we have considered the
issues raised in that brief in affirming his conviction and sentence.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --