United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 20, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-20473
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RODNEY DAVIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CR-867-ALL
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rodney Davis, also known as Arthur Carl Davis, pleaded
guilty without a written plea agreement to possession with intent
to distribute five grams or more of a mixture or substance
containing cocaine base, and he was sentenced to 90 months’
imprisonment, five years’ supervised release, and a $100 special
assessment. At rearraignment, before the district court accepted
his guilty plea, Davis asserted that he did not actually have
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 03-20473
-2-
possession of the drugs, although he admitted that he arranged
the meeting at which the drugs were sold and that he was present
at the meeting. The district court then asked him whether he
“knew what it was they were doing,” and Davis responded
affirmatively.
Davis argues on appeal that his denial at rearraignment of
having possessed the drugs indicates that his guilty plea was not
made knowingly and voluntarily. However, aiding and abetting “is
an alternative charge in every count, whether explicit or
implicit, and the rule is well-established, both in this circuit
and others, that one who has been indicted as a principal may be
convicted on evidence showing that he merely aided and abetted
the commission of the offense.” United States v. Bullock, 451
F.2d 884, 888 (5th Cir. 1971). Davis admitted facts sufficient
to support a conviction as an aider an abettor. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 2(a); United States v. Sorrells, 145 F.3d 744, 753 (5th Cir.
1998). Although the trial court did not inform Davis of the
elements of aiding and abetting, his substantial rights were not
violated because it is unlikely that his knowledge of the
elements of aiding and abetting would have affected his
willingness to plead guilty. See United States v. Johnson,
1 F.3d 296, 302 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc). Therefore, the
district court did not commit plain error and its decision is
AFFIRMED.