United States v. James Holmes

── United States v. James Holmes ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 24-4646 Doc: 48 Filed: 06/05/2026 Pg: 1 of 5 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-4646 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES EARL HOLMES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:21−cr−00228−MOC−SCR−1) Submitted: April 13, 2026 Decided: June 5, 2026 Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Melissa S. Baldwin, Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Russ Ferguson, United States Attorney, Anthony J. Enright, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-4646 Doc: 48 Filed: 06/05/2026 Pg: 2 of 5 PER CURIAM: James Earl Holmes appeals a 110-month sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal, he argues that the district court erred in denying him an offense-level reduction based on acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 and in calculating his criminal-history category under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2. We affirm. “In assessing whether a sentencing court has properly applied the Guidelines, we review factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.” United States v. Edwards, 128 F.4th 562, 565 (4th Cir. 2025) (quoting United States v. Mitchell, 120 F.4th 1233, 1237 (4th Cir. 2024)). Section 3E1.1(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines provides for a two-level reduction “[i]f the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense.” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). That demonstration requires the defendant to “prove to the court by a preponderance of the evidence ‘that he has clearly recognized and affirmatively accepted personal responsibility for his criminal conduct.’” United States v. Bolton, 858 F.3d 905, 914 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Dugger, 485 F.3d 236, 239 (4th Cir. 2007)). The district court “may consider, in relevant part, (a) truthful admissions to the underlying offenses or related conduct; (b) voluntary withdrawal from crime; (c) voluntary and prompt surrender to authorities; and (d) the timeliness of the defendant’s apparent acceptance of responsibility.” Id. at 915. The probation officer recommended denying Holmes a reduction for acceptance of responsibility based on his misconduct in jail after his arrest and his plea. While in 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-4646 Doc: 48 Filed: 06/05/2026 Pg: 3 of 5 detention, incident reports show that Holmes stabbed a detention officer, repeatedly engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior in front of female detention officers, and threw an unidentified brown liquid at a jail employee. Holmes objected, arguing that the sentencing court should not consider conduct that was unrelated to his underlying offense of firearm possession. He contended that he was entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility based on his timely plea