UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4602

MONSTSHO EUGENE VERNON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville.

Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-01-239)

Submitted: April 30, 2002

Decided: June 3, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

C. Rauch Wise, LAW OFFICE OF C. RAUCH WISE, Greenwood,

South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States

Attorney, E. Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Monstsho Eugene Vernon pled guilty to seven counts of armed

bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2113(a) & (d), 2 (West

2000), and two counts of using a firearm during and in relation to a

crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West 2000).

On appeal, Vernon contends that the district court erred in finding a

factual basis for his plea for the § 924(c) offense charged in count 12

of his indictment, charging him with using, carrying, and brandishing

a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence; specifically,

an armed bank robbery. The district court’s determination of whether

a factual basis exists for a guilty plea and its acceptance of a guilty

plea is reversed only for abuse of discretion. United States v. Mitchell,

104 F.3d 649, 652 (4th Cir. 1997). 

The record discloses an adequate factual basis for Vernon’s guilty

plea. The court’s reading of the charges in the indictment, coupled

with Vernon’s admission to the charges, provided a sufficient basis

for the plea. See United States v. McFadden, 238 F.3d 198, 200 (2nd

Cir. 2001). Moreover, Vernon also acknowledged the accuracy of the

Government’s recitation of the factual basis for the charge, which

specifically averred Vernon’s use of a handgun in connection with the

robbery. 

Vernon also asserts that his receipt of a three-level enhancement

for use of a "dangerous weapon" in connection with the underlying

armed robbery offense undermines the validity of his § 924(c) conviction for use of a firearm, because both offenses relate to the same

armed robbery. While we note that the Government concedes that

application of the dangerous weapon enhancement to the pertinent

bank robbery charge was improper under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual § 2K2.4, this does not undermine the validity of Vernon’s

plea to the § 924(c) charge. Moreover, we further note that Vernon

does not challenge the propriety of the enhancement, or the Government’s position that application of the enhancement did not ultimately

affect Vernon’s sentence. 

Accordingly, we affirm Vernon’s conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

2 UNITED STATES v. VERNON
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. VERNON 3