UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4466

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

MARIO ALBERTO TORRES, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Lacy H. Thornburg, 

District Judge. (2:07-cr-00028-LHT-1) 

Submitted: February 26, 2009 Decided: March 23, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Claire J. Rauscher, Raquel K. Wilson, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF 

WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, 

Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Mario Alberto Torres pled guilty, pursuant to a plea 

agreement, to one count of distributing methamphetamine, in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(viii) (2006) 

(“Count One”), and one count of possession of a firearm during a 

drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (2006) (“Count Two”). The district court 

sentenced Torres to a total of 120 months’ imprisonment. Torres 

timely appealed. On appeal, Torres alleges that the district 

court erred in finding a sufficient factual basis to support his 

guilty plea to Count Two. 

 Before a court may enter judgment on a guilty plea, it 

must find a factual basis to support the plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 

11(b)(3). The district court “may conclude that a factual basis 

exists from anything that appears on the record.” United 

States v. Mastrapa, 509 F.3d 652, 660 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). A “stipulated recitation 

of facts alone [is] sufficient to support a plea.” United 

States v. Wilson, 81 F.3d 1300, 1308 (4th Cir. 1996). In order 

to find a factual basis, the court need not establish that a 

jury would find the defendant guilty or even that the defendant 

is guilty by a preponderance of the evidence. The court must 

determine only “that the conduct to which the defendant admits 

is in fact an offense under the statutory provision under which 

2 
he is pleading guilty.” United States v. Carr, 271 F.3d 172, 

178-79 n.6 (4th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted) (interpreting an earlier version of Rule 11). 

This court reviews “the district court’s finding of a factual 

basis for abuse of discretion, and [the court] ‘will not find an 

abuse of discretion so long as the district court could 

reasonably have determined that there was a sufficient factual 

basis based on the record before it.’” United States v. 

Ketchum, 550 F.3d 363, 367 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing Mastrapa, 509 

F.3d at 660.) 

 To prove a violation § 924(c)(1) the Government must 

establish: 1) that the Defendant committed a crime of violence 

or drug trafficking offense; 2) that during the commission of 

that offense the Defendant knowingly either used or carried a 

firearm, or possessed a firearm; and 3) that the Defendant 

either used or carried the firearm “in relation to,” or 

possessed the firearm “in furtherance of” the drug trafficking 

offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Contrary to Torres’ 

contention, the evidence supports a finding that he sold the 

firearm in relation to the narcotics transaction. See United 

States v. Lipford, 203 F.3d 259 (4th Cir. 2000). Our review of 

the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not 

abuse its discretion in finding a factual basis supported 

Torres’ guilty plea to Count Two. 

3 
4 

 We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 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