UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-4715
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSEPH DALE ANTLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CR-02-14)
Submitted: February 27, 2004 Decided: March 4, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Kelli C. McTaggart, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. J.
Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, Sean Kittrell,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Dale Antley pled guilty to using and carrying a
firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime (Count 1),* to
possessing with intent to distribute cocaine (Counts 2, 3), and
possessing with intent to distribute marijuana (Count 4). Antley
was sentenced to 132 months imprisonment, twelve months for Counts
2, 3, and 4 and 120 months consecutively for Count 1. On appeal he
alleges that the district court erred in accepting his guilty plea
to Count 1 because there was an inadequate factual basis to support
the plea. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Because Antley did not attempt to withdraw his guilty
plea in the district court, we review the issue for plain error.
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 527 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 537 U.S. 899 (2002). A district court possesses wide
discretion in determining whether a sufficient factual basis
exists, and its acceptance of a guilty plea will be reversed only
for an abuse of that discretion. United States v. Mitchell, 104
F.3d 649, 652 (4th Cir. 1997).
Antley alleges that there was insufficient evidence to
show that he possessed and discharged his firearm in furtherance of
his drug trafficking crimes. We find that there was a sufficient
factual basis given at the plea hearing to support the fact that
*
The indictment noted that because the firearm was discharged,
Antley faced an enhanced ten-year sentence under 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) (2000).
- 2 -
Antley’s weapon was possessed in furtherance of his drug
trafficking business. United States v. Lomax, 293 F.3d 701, 705
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1031 (2002) (citing factors).
Thus, we find that the district court did not plainly err by
accepting Antley’s guilty plea to Count 1. Martinez, 277 F.3d at
527. Accordingly, we affirm.
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
- 3 -