Jerone Tyrell Holman was sentenced to 66 months in prison after police found him drunk beside his crashed car in 2023 with a stolen handgun and two magazines containing 32 rounds of ammunition. Holman had two prior felonies on his record, including a 2010 robbery with a dangerous weapon conviction where he held someone at gunpoint to steal $1,000 in cash and electronics, and a 2015 felon-in-possession conviction that led to repeated supervised release violations.
The appeals court systematically rejected Holman's constitutional arguments, with Judge Wilkinson writing that his challenges "run headlong into our precedent." The court found that Holman's facial challenge was foreclosed by United States v. Canada and his as-applied challenge was barred by United States v. Hunt, which rejected "the need for any case-by-case inquiry about whether a felon may be barred from possessing firearms." The panel concluded that someone with Holman's violent criminal history and "persistent disregard for the rule of law and for the safety of others" does not qualify as a "law-abiding, responsible citizen" protected by the Second Amendment.
Holman also challenged for the first time on appeal the district court's application of sentencing guidelines for large-capacity magazines, arguing there was no evidence his magazines exceeded 15 rounds or that his gun could accept them. The court applied plain error review since Holman had told the district judge he "agreed" with the presentencing report. Judge Wilkinson found no error, noting that with 32 total rounds recovered from two magazines, "one of the magazines therefore must have held more than 15 rounds."
The decision reinforces the Fourth Circuit's strict approach to felon-in-possession cases following recent Supreme Court precedent and strengthens the government's ability to enhance sentences for weapons with high-capacity magazines. The court's detailed plain error analysis also provides guidance for attorneys on preserving sentencing challenges, emphasizing that strategic silence followed by appellate objections constitutes impermissible "sandbagging."