Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Junior HOLMES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-26
Citations: 538 F. App'x 316
Docket Number: No. 13-4027
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Junior HOLMES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 538
Pages: 316–317

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Junior HOLMES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-4027.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 22, 2013.
Decided: Aug. 26, 2013.
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, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
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 sen- fenced 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 under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(2) (2011). We affirm.
A defendant seeking a Guidelines reduction for a mitigating circumstance has the burden of proof. United States v. Urrego-Linares, 879 F.2d 1234, 1238-39 (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. However, the testimony he presented to establish that fact, including his own, was contradictory. 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 to the lawful sporting purpose reduction.
We therefore affirm the district court's judgment. 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.