UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4144

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SAMUEL EUGENE HOLLOMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:15-cr-00246-WO-1)

Submitted: January 18, 2017 Decided: February 9, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dhamian A. Blue, BLUE LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Randall Stuart Galyon, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Eugene Holloman appeals his conviction and sentence 

for possessing with intent to distribute a mixture containing 

100 grams or more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (2012), and being a felon in possession 

of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) 

(2012). Holloman pleaded guilty through a written plea 

agreement, and the district court sentenced him to 168 months’ 

imprisonment. On appeal, Holloman’s counsel filed a brief 

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

that he found no meritorious issues for appeal because of 

Holloman’s waiver of his right to appeal, but questioning three 

aspects of the proceeding below. Holloman did not file a 

supplemental pro se brief after receiving notice of his right to 

do so, and the Government elected not to respond to the Anders

brief.

Although Holloman’s plea agreement contained an appellate 

waiver, the Government has not sought to enforce it in this 

case. Thus, we review the record as required by Anders. See

United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 2007)

(“If an Anders brief is filed, the government is free to file a

responsive brief raising the waiver issue (if applicable) or do

nothing, allowing this court to perform the required Anders

review.”).
3

In the Anders brief, counsel, while expressing his belief 

that the appeal waiver bars the appeal, questions the district 

court’s denial of Holloman’s motion to suppress, calculation of 

the drug quantity for sentencing, and enhancement of Holloman’s 

sentence for maintaining a premises to manufacture or distribute 

a controlled substance. Holloman waived any appeal based on his 

motion to suppress because he did not enter a conditional plea 

preserving the right to appeal that issue. See United States v. 

Bowles, 602 F.3d 581, 582 (4th Cir. 2010).

Counsel’s arguments against Holloman’s sentence also fail. 

The preponderance of the evidence shows that Holloman “was 

responsible for at least the drug quantity attributed to him.” 

United States v. Kiulin, 360 F.3d 456, 461 (4th Cir. 2004). In 

particular, the district court credibly linked seized currency 

to the sale of heroin and therefore properly converted the 

currency into heroin weight when calculating the drug quantity. 

See United States v. Sampson, 140 F.3d 585, 592 (4th Cir. 1998).

For the premises enhancement, we review the district 

court’s decision for plain error because Holloman did not object 

to the enhancement at sentencing. See United States v. 

Strieper, 666 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2012). Police found 

Holloman inside the premises without the owner, but with a 

person who appeared to receive orders from Holloman regarding 

the drugs and paraphernalia inside the home. Because those 
4

facts indicate Holloman controlled the illicit activities at the 

premises, the district court did not plainly err when it applied 

the premises enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 2D1.1(b)(12), cmt. n.17 (2015).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for 

appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Holloman, in writing, of 

the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Holloman requests that a petition be filed, 

but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, 

then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Holloman.

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