IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-30042

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROLAND CHAMBERS, also known as Troy Chambers,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:18-CR-47-1

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roland Chambers pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute, and to 

possess with intent to distribute, 100 grams or more of heroin, and he was 

sentenced to a 115-month term of imprisonment. In his plea agreement, 

Chambers broadly waived the right to appeal his guilty plea, conviction, and 

sentence, reserving only the right to bring an appeal of a sentence imposed in 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 2, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-30042 Document: 00515254646 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/02/2020
No. 19-30042

2

excess of the statutory maximum and the right to raise an ineffective 

assistance claim in an appropriate proceeding. 

On appeal, Chambers contends that there was not an adequate factual 

basis for his conviction. This claim is not barred by the appeal waiver 

provision. See United States v. Hildenbrand, 527 F.3d 466, 474 (5th Cir. 2008). 

However, because he did not object to the sufficiency of the factual basis 

in the district court, review is for plain error. See United States v. Trejo, 610 

F.3d 308, 313 (5th Cir. 2010). To prevail on plain error review, Chambers must 

“show (1) there is an error, (2) that is clear and obvious, and (3) that affects his 

substantial rights.” United States v. Walker, 828 F.3d 352, 354 (5th Cir. 2016) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Even if these three 

requirements are met, the decision to correct the forfeited error still lies within 

our sound discretion, which we will not exercise unless the error seriously 

affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In assessing the sufficiency of the factual basis on plain error review, we

“may look beyond those facts admitted by the defendant during the plea 

colloquy and scan the entire record for facts supporting his conviction.” Trejo, 

610 F.3d at 313. We may consider, among other things, “the facts gleaned from 

the plea agreement and plea colloquy, the factual findings relied upon in the 

presentence report (‘PSR’), as well as ‘fairly drawn’ inferences from the 

evidence presented both post-plea and at the sentencing hearing.” Id. at 317. 

Here, Chambers’s admission that he sometimes fronted heroin to others 

is strong evidence of participation in a conspiracy. See United States v. PosadaRios, 158 F.3d 832, 860 (5th Cir. 1998). We reject the contention that the 

factual basis is insufficient because it only describes a buyer-seller 

relationship, see United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 333 (5th Cir. 2012), 

 Case: 19-30042 Document: 00515254646 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/02/2020
No. 19-30042

3

as the record establishes that Chambers knowingly participated in a plan to 

distribute heroin through at least two individuals. To the extent that 

Chambers argues that these individuals, referred to in the record as “the white 

boy” and the “other dude,” were not part of the same conspiracy, there is no 

clear and obvious error as the record shows that Chambers was conspiring with 

both of them to distribute heroin, and “it is not necessary for all coconspirators 

to know each other or to work together on every phase of the criminal venture.” 

United States v. Wilson, 657 F.2d 755, 759 (5th Cir. 1981). Taking into account 

the two-ounce (56.7 gram) quantity of heroin “the white boy” possessed when 

he was arrested, and fairly drawing factual inferences from Chambers’s 

conversation with a confidential source regarding profit-yielding transfers of 

heroin to these two individuals, there is no clear and obvious error in the 

district court’s determination that there was a sufficient factual basis for 

Chambers’s guilty plea to the charge of conspiring to distribute, or possess with 

intent to distribute, 100 grams or more of heroin. See Trejo, 610 F.3d at 313.1 

The Government correctly contends that Chambers’s challenge to 

application of an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 is barred by the appeal 

waiver provision of the plea agreement. See United States v. Keele, 755 F.3d 

752, 754 (5th Cir. 2014). Chambers’s contention that his appeal waiver was 

not knowing because he could not have known his sentence, and any errors 

that may have contributed to it, at the time of his guilty plea, is, as he 

acknowledges, foreclosed. See United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 567-

68 (5th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, Chambers’s sentencing claim is dismissed. 

The conviction is AFFIRMED, and the appeal is DISMISSED in part due 

to the waiver of the right to appeal the sentence.

 

1 In assessing the sufficiency of the factual basis, we do not rely on Chambers’s heroin 

transactions with the confidential source who was working with law enforcement authorities. 

See Sears v. United States, 343 F.2d 139, 142 (5th Cir. 1965).

 Case: 19-30042 Document: 00515254646 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/02/2020