Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-04869/USCOURTS-ca4-08-04869-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thessalonias Anre Holmes
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4869

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

THESSALONIAS ANRE HOLMES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. 

(1:07-cr-00317-MBS-1)

Submitted: May 5, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John C. Neiman, Jr., BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, 

Birmingham, Alabama, for Appellant. John David Rowell, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-4869 Doc: 28 Filed: 05/28/2010 Pg: 1 of 6
2

PER CURIAM:

Thessalonias A. Holmes appeals his conviction and 

sentence of 121 months, imposed after he pled guilty to 

possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). Appellate counsel has filed a brief 

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

questioning whether the United States breached its plea 

agreement in failing to move to reduce Holmes’s sentence under 

Rule 35(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or 18 

U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2006), but concluding there are no meritorious 

grounds for appeal. Holmes filed a pro se supplemental brief, 

raising the same issue. The Government elected not to file a 

brief. We previously placed this case in abeyance pending the 

outcome of United States v. Peake, No. 08-5132. As our mandate 

has now issued in Peake

When a claim of breach of a plea agreement has been 

preserved, we review the district court’s factual findings for 

clear error and its “application of principles of contract 

interpretation de novo.” 

, this case has been removed from 

abeyance, and is ripe for review.

United States v. Bowe, 257 F.3d 336, 

342 (4th Cir. 2001). However, because Holmes did not claim in 

the district court that the Government had breached the plea 

agreement, appellate review in this case is for plain error. 

Puckett v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1423, 1428 (2009).

Appeal: 08-4869 Doc: 28 Filed: 05/28/2010 Pg: 2 of 6
3

Plea agreements are grounded in contract law, and both 

parties should receive the benefit of their bargain. Bowe, 257 

F.3d at 345. The government breaches the plea agreement when a 

promise it made to induce the plea goes unfulfilled. 

Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971). Because of 

constitutional and supervisory concerns, the government is held 

to a greater degree of responsibility for imprecision or 

ambiguities in plea agreements. United States v. Harvey, 791 

F.2d 294, 300-01 (4th Cir. 1986). Where an agreement is 

ambiguous in its terms, the terms must be construed against the 

government. Id. at 300, 303. However, “[w]hile the 

[g]overnment must be held to the promises it made, it will not 

be bound to those it did not make.” United States v. Fentress

In reviewing the remainder of the record, we note that 

Holmes’s sentence appears procedurally unreasonable, as the 

district court failed to provide any explanation for imposing 

the sentence it did. We recently held, in 

, 

792 F.2d 461, 464-65 (4th Cir. 1986). After reviewing the 

record, we find that the Government’s failure to move for a 

downward departure or reduction in sentence was not in breach of 

the plea agreement. Accordingly, this issue is without merit.

United States v. 

Carter, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2009), that a district court must 

conduct an “individualized assessment” of the particular facts 

of every sentence, on the record, whether the court imposes a 

Appeal: 08-4869 Doc: 28 Filed: 05/28/2010 Pg: 3 of 6
4

sentence above, below, or within the guidelines range. Id.

Mr. Holmes, having calculated and considered the 

advisory sentencing guidelines and having also 

considered the relevant statutory sentencing factors 

that are contained in Title 18, United States Code 

Section 3553(a), it is the judgment of the court that

the Defendant, Thessalonias Anre Holmes, is hereby 

committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to 

be imprisoned for a term of 121 months.

at 

330. Here, the district court summarized its reasons for 

Holmes’s sentence as follows:

The findings of fact of the presentence report are 

adopted as the reasons for the sentence and they are 

incorporated by reference.

Except for noting that its sentence was based on the 

findings of fact in the presentence report, the district court 

failed to provide any reasons why a guidelines sentence was 

appropriate for Holmes or why it chose to sentence him at the 

low end of the advisory guideline range. Therefore, it is clear 

that the district court failed to provide an individualized 

assessment as required by Carter

However, Holmes did not object to the adequacy of the 

district court’s explanation in the district court. Where a 

defendant does not object to a district court’s failure to 

explain an imposed sentence, or otherwise preserve the issue for 

review by requesting a sentence shorter than the one he 

received, our review is for plain error. 

.

See United States v. 

Appeal: 08-4869 Doc: 28 Filed: 05/28/2010 Pg: 4 of 6
5

Lynn

[A]n appellate court may correct an error not brought 

to the attention of the trial court if (1) there is an 

error (2) that is plain and (3) that affects 

substantial rights. If all three of these conditions 

are met, an appellate court may then exercise its 

discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if 

(4) the error seriously affects the fairness, 

integrity, or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings.

, 592 F.3d 572, 578-79 (4th Cir. 2010). Under plain error 

review,

United States v. Carr, 303 F.3d 539, 543 (4th Cir. 2002) 

(internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted). 

In the sentencing context, an error affects substantial rights 

if the defendant can show that the sentence imposed “was longer 

than that to which he would otherwise be subject.” United 

States v. Washington

We have reviewed the entire record in accordance with 

, 404 F.3d 834, 849 (4th Cir. 2005) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). After 

reviewing the proceedings, we conclude any error the district 

court may have committed in failing to adequately explain 

Holmes’s sentence did not affect Holmes’s substantial rights, 

and is therefore not cognizable on appeal.

Anders and have not identified any meritorious issues for 

appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. This court requires counsel to inform Holmes, in 

writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If the client requests such 

Appeal: 08-4869 Doc: 28 Filed: 05/28/2010 Pg: 5 of 6
6

petition be filed, but counsel believes that doing so would be 

frivolous, counsel may move this court to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the 

motion was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 08-4869 Doc: 28 Filed: 05/28/2010 Pg: 6 of 6