United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 6, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-30275
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KENDRICK STRINGFELLOW,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:04-CR-50091-4
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kendrick Stringfellow pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written
plea agreement, to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. He was sentenced to 188
months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release, and
a $100 special assessment was imposed. He appeals his conviction
and sentence, arguing that the factual basis articulated in the
district court is insufficient to establish the elements of the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 05-30275
-2-
crime and that the district court erred by accepting the guilty
plea.
Generally, this court reviews for clear error the district
court’s acceptance of a guilty plea as a factual finding. United
States v. Reasor, 418 F.3d 466, 470 (5th Cir. 2005). When a
defendant allows an error in a guilty-plea colloquy to pass
without objection, this court reviews for plain error only.
United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002). Stringfellow
asserts that he objected in the district court to the sufficiency
of the factual basis and that his argument should be reviewed for
clear error. Although Stringfellow voiced an objection in the
district court to the testimony that established the factual
basis, he limited the objection to its use in connection with the
Sentencing Guidelines. Because Stringfellow did not challenge
the sufficiency of the factual basis in the district court,
review is for plain error. United States v. Angeles-Mascote, 206
F.3d 529, 530 (5th Cir. 2002).
To establish a drug conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 846, the Government must establish beyond a reasonable doubt
that (1) an agreement existed to violate the narcotics laws, (2)
the defendant knew of the agreement, and (3) the defendant
voluntarily participated in it. United States v. Morgan, 117
F.3d 849, 853 (5th Cir. 1997). The testimony of Special Agent
Robert Fortune was sufficient to provide a factual basis for the
elements of the crime. Stringfellow’s concern regarding the
No. 05-30275
-3-
testimony was limited to the characterization of his role as an
“enforcer.” He did not dispute the testimony that he was
involved in delivering drugs and money. Further, Stringfellow
admitted that he participated in the drug conspiracy.
Stringfellow fails to establish plain error. Accordingly, the
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.