UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4449

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

TORREY DEVON WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (5:10-cr-00178-BR-1)

Submitted: January 20, 2012 Decided: January 27, 2012

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James C. White, Michelle M. Walker, LAW OFFICES OF JAMES C. 

WHITE, P.C., Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas

G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Torrey Devon Williams appeals from his conviction for 

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, which was entered 

pursuant to his guilty plea.1 On appeal, he asserts that the 

district court erred in finding at his Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 

hearing that a sufficient factual basis supported his plea. 

Specifically, Williams contends that there was an insufficient 

factual basis to support the element of the offense requiring 

that the possession of the firearm was “in or affecting 

commerce.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2006). We affirm.

Because Williams did not move in the district court to 

withdraw his guilty plea, our review is for plain error.2 United 

States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). To 

establish plain error, Williams “must show: (1) an error was 

made; (2) the error is plain; and (3) the error affects 

substantial rights.” United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337, 

342-43 (4th Cir. 2009). “The decision to correct the error lies 

 1 In his initial brief on appeal, Williams challenged the 

sentence imposed on this firearm conviction and a conviction for 

possession with intent to distribute marijuana. His sentencing 

claims were dismissed based upon the waiver of his right to 

appeal in his plea agreement.

2 The parties dispute the standard of review. However, we 

made clear in United States v. Bradley, 455 F.3d 453, 461 (4th 

Cir. 2006) that "all forfeited Rule 11 errors [are] subject to 

plain error review." 
3

within our discretion, and we exercise that discretion only if 

the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public 

reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 343 (internal 

quotation marks omitted).

Assuming without deciding that the district court 

committed a clear or obvious error in finding that a sufficient 

factual basis supported Williams’ guilty plea, see United 

States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993) (explaining that 

“plain” error is “synonymous with clear or . . . obvious” error 

(internal quotation marks omitted)), Williams still fails to 

establish plain error because he fails to show that the error 

affected his substantial rights. In the guilty plea context, a 

defendant meets this burden by showing that, but for the error, 

he would not have entered his guilty plea. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 

at 343. Williams, however, does not suggest that he would not 

have pled guilty but for the district court’s error, and the 

record does not independently support such a conclusion.

Because Williams cannot show that his substantial 

rights were affected, he cannot show plain error. Accordingly, 

we affirm his conviction. 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