### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T N ove m be r 15, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 10338 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -001 26 -C R -T -N -1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s B I L L Y W A Y N E S I M M O N S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M i d d l e D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 15, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A pp el l antB i l l y W ay ne S i m m on s app ea l s hi s c on vi ct i on for posse ss i on of a2

f ir e a r m in f

u r th e r a n c e o f

a d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g c r im e , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 92 4(c) (1)( A )( i ). O n app ea l , S i m m on s a rgues f or the fi rs tt i m e thatthe di stri ctcourt vi ol at ed F ed. R . C ri m . P . 11 by ac ce pt i ng hi s gui l ty pl eaw here there w as no fa ctual basi s f or the pl eat o 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 24 (c )( 1)(A ). A l tho ug h h e c on ce des thathe had a dm i tt e d ha vi ng the l i s t e d w e apons dur i ng the s e a r c h of hi s hous e on M a r c h 10, 2 0 0 4 , Si mmo n s a s s e r t s th a th i s s t a t e me n ta th i s p l e a c o l l o q u y , th a tth e f i r e a r ms w e r e notpr e s e nta thi s hous e dur i ng the da y on w hi c h he s ol d m a r i j ua na t o the c o n f i d e n t i a l i n f

o r ma n t( “ CI ” ) , n e g a t e s a n e c e s s a ry e l e me n to f 1 8 U . S. C. § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A ) , n a m e ly , th a t S im m o n s m u s t u s e o rc a rry th e f ir e a r m d u r in g a n d in r e l a t i on t o the drug tr a f

f i c ki ng of f e ns e orpos s e s s the f

i r e a r m i n f

ur the r a nc e of

the drug tr a f f i c ki ng of f e ns e . S i m m ons m a i nt a i ns tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d a p la in e rr o rth a t a f

f e c te d h is s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . S im m o n s f u r th e ra r g u e s th a t, b e c a u s e h e w a s c o n v ic te d o f th e c r im e a n d s e n te n c e d to 6 0 m o n th s im p r is o n m e n t, the c our t ’ s e rr ors e r i ous l y a f f e c t s the f a i rne s s , i nt e gr i ty , a nd publ i c r e put a t i on of th e p r o c e e d in g s . W h e r e a d e f

e n d a n t f a ils to o b je c t to a R u le 1 1 v io la tio n in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, w e r e v ie w f

o rp la in e rr o r . U

ni te d State s v . Monr oe , 35 3 F . 3d 13 46 , 13 49 (11th C i r. 2003) ( c i t i ng U

ni te d State s v . V

onn , 5 3 5 U. S. 5 5 , 5 9 , 1 2 2 S. Ct . 1 0 4 3 , 1 0 4 6 , 1 5 2 L. E d . 2 d9 0 ( 2 0 0 2 ) ) . U n d e rp la in e rr o rr e v ie w , th e r e m u s t b e ( 1 ) a n e rr o r , ( 2 ) th a t is3

p la in , a n d ( 3 ) a f

f e c ts s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . Monr oe , 3 5 3 F . 3 d at1 3 4 9 . W h en th ese th r e e f a c to r s a r e m e t, w e m a y th e n e x e r c is e o u rd is c r e tio n a n d c o rr e c t th e e rr o rif it se ri ou sl y a ff

ec t s the fa i rnes s, i nt egri ty, or pu bl i c r eput at i on of the j ud i ci al p r o c e e d in g s . I

d. “F u r th e r , in th e R u le 1 1 c o n te x t, th e r e v ie w in g c o u r t m a y c o n s u lt the w ho l e r ec ord w hen con si deri ng the ef fe ctof any e rr or on subst ant i al ri gh t s. ” Monr oe , 3 5 3 F .3 d a t 1 3 5 0 ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . F e d e r a l R u le o f

C r im in a l P r o c e d u r e R u le 1 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) r e q u ir e s th a t th e c o u r t, b e f o r e e n te r in g ju d g m e n t o n a g u ilty p le a , “d e te r m in e th a t th e r e is a f a c tu a l b a s is f orthe pl e a . ” F e d. R . C r i m . P . 11( b) ( 3) . T hi s r e qui r e m e nts e r ve s the purpos e of pr ot e c t i ng “ a de f

e nda ntw ho m i s t a ke nl y be l i e ve s tha thi s c onduc tc ons t i tut e s the cr i m i nal offe nse t o w hi ch he i s pl ea di ng . ” U ni ted Stat es v. Fry e , 402 F . 3d 1123, 11 28 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( qu ot at i on om i tt ed). “ T he st andard for eval uat i ng chal l enges to th e f a c tu a l b a s is f

o ra g u ilty p le a is w h e th e rth e tr ia l c o u r t w a s p r e s e n te d w ith evi dence fr om w hi ch i tcoul d rea sonabl y f i nd thatthe defendantw as gu i l ty. ” I d. ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . U nde r18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) , “ a ny pe r s on w ho, dur i ng a nd i n r e l a t i on t o a nyc r i m e of

vi ol e nc e ordrug tr a f

f i c ki ng c r i m e . . . f

orw hi c h the pe r s on m a y be p r o s e c u te d in a c o u r t o f th e U n ite d S ta te s , u s e s o rc a rr ie s a f ir e a r m , o rw h o , in furthera nce of any s uch cri m e, po ss es se s afi re arm . . . shal l be se nt ence d t o a t erm4

of i m pr i s onm e ntof

notl e s s tha n 5 y e a r s . ” 18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) . I n the i ns t a ntc a s e , the di s tr i c tc our te nt e r e d j udgm e nta ga i ns tS i m m ons f orpos s e s s i on of a f i r e a r m i n f

ur the r a nc e of

a drug tr a f

f i c ki ng c r i m e ( a s oppos e d t o the f i r s tpr ong of 18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) ( 1) ( A ) , us i ng orc a rry i ng a f i r e a r m dur i ng a nd i n r e l a t i on t o a cr i m e) . (R 1-68 ). I n U ni te d State s v . T

i m m ons , 28 3 F . 3d 12 46 (11th C i r. 20 02 ), w e det erm i ned th a t a c o n v ic tio n u n d e rth e “p o s s e s s io n in f u r th e r a n c e o f

” p r o n g o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 924( c ) ( 1) ( A ) r e qui r e d tha tthe gove rnm e nt“ e s t abl i s h tha tthe f i r e a r m he l pe d, furthere d, prom ot ed, or advanced the drug tra ff i cki ng . ” T

i m m ons , 28 3 F . 3d at 12 52 . W e e xp l ai ned that , base d u po n the l egi sl at i ve hi st ory of 18 U . S . C . § 9 24 (c ), the “ pos s e s s i on i n f

ur the r a nc e of

” phr a s e w a s a dde d t o “ r e ve r s e the r e s tr i c t i ve ef fe ctof” B ai l eyv. U

ni ted Stat es , 516 U . S . 137, 116 S . C t . 501, 133 L . E d. 2d 472 ( 1995) , w hi c h he l d tha t“ § 924( c ) ( 1) r e qui r e s e vi de nc e s uf f i c i e ntt o s how a n act i ve e m ploy m e nt

of the fi re arm by the defendant . ” T i m m ons , 283 F . 3d a t1252 ( c i t a t i on a nd quot a t i ons om i tt e d) ( e m pha s i s i n or i gi na l ) . N e ve r the l e s s , the m e r e pr e s e nc e of f ir e a r m s w ith in th e d e f

e n d a n t’s c o n tr o l d u r in g a d ru g tr a f f ic k in g o f f e n s e is in s u f f ic ie n t. I d. a t1253. W e he l d tha t“ the r e m us tbe a s how i ng of s om e ne xus betw ee n the fi re arm and the drug se l l i ng op er at i on ” t o sust ai n a conv i ct i on un der § 9 2 4 ( c ) . I d. at1 2 5 3 (q u o t at i o n o m i tt ed ). T h e n ex u s m ay b e est ab l i sh ed b y5

“ the ty pe of

drug a c t i vi ty tha ti s be i ng c onduc t e d, a c c e s s i bi l i ty of the f i r e a r m , the ty pe of

the w e apon, w he the rthe w e apon i s s t ol e n, the s ta tu s o f th e p o s s e s s io n ( le g itim a te o rille g a l) , w h e th e rth e g u n is l oa de d, pr oxi m i ty t o the drugs ordrug pr of i t s , a nd the t i m e a nd ci rc um st ance s und erw hi ch the gu n i s f ou nd . ” I d. (q u o t at i o n o m i tt ed ). A l th o u g h th ese factors are n o tex cl u si v e, “ th ey d i st i n g u i sh po ss es si on i n furthera nce of a c ri m e f rom i nn ocentpo ss es si on of a w al l -m ou nt ed ant i qu e or a n u nl oaded h un t i ng ri fl e l ocked i n a cupb oard. ” I d. ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . F ur the r , a “ c onvi c t i on unde r§ 924( c ) doe s notr e qui r e e i the rtha tthe defe nd antbe conv i ct ed of or charged w i th the predi ca t e off ense . ” Fry e , 402 F . 3d a t 1 1 2 7 . In thi s c as e, the re cord as a w ho l e e st abl i shes that , (1) S i m m on s s w ore und er p e n a lty o f

p e r ju ry th a t o f

f ic e r s f o u n d in s id e h is h o u s e 1 4 f ir e a r m s s tr a te g ic a lly pl a c e d, m a r i

j ua na , a s e tof

s c a l e s , “ a nd othe ri ndi c i a of na r c ot i c s tr a f

f i c ki ng; ” ( 2) S i m m ons t e s t i f

i e d unde roa th tha tof

f i c e r s f ound f i r e a r m s , m a r i

j ua na , m a r i

j ua na se eds, m on eyw i thi n a sa fe , and a se tof sc al es i nsi de hi s hom e; (3) the P S I s t at ed fa ct s s i m i l art o tho se adm i tt ed t o b y S i m m on s, i ncl ud i ng thatthe fi re arm s w er e foun d “ i n cl ose proxi m i ty” t o the m ar i j uana; and (4) S i m m on s a dm i tt ed i n the pl ea a g r e e me n ta n d a tth e p l e a c o l l o q u y th a th e h a d p r e v i o u s l y s o l d ma r i j u a n a t o a CI i ns i de hi s hous e . T he s e f a c t s e s t abl i s h a ne xus be tw e e n the f i r e a r m s a nd the drug tr a f f ic k in g o f f e n s e . See T

i m m ons , 283 F . 3d a t1252 ( hol di ng tha t , the ty pe of drug6

a c t i vi ty be i ng c onduc t e d, the a c c e s s i bi l i ty of the f i r e a r m s , the pr oxi m i ty of the fi re arm t o the drug s, and the t i m e a nd ci rc um st ance s und erw hi ch the fi re arm s a re f ound, a r e a m ong the f

a c t or s tha tc a n e s t abl i s h a ne xus be tw e e n f i r e a r m s a nd a drug tra ff

i cki ng offe nse) . F i r s t , S i m m ons ’ s pos s e s s i on of m a r i j ua na , m a r i

j ua na s e e ds , a nd a s e tof s c a le s d e m o n s tr a te s th a t S im m o n s p o s s e s s e d th e m a r iju a n a w ith th e in te n t to di stri bu t e. A l tho ug h cou nton e of S i m m on s’ s s up er ce di ng i nd i ctm entchar ged S im m o n s w ith “k n o w in g ly a n d in te n tio n a lly p o s s e s s [ in g ] w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te m a r iju a n a ” a n d c o u n t tw o c h a r g e d S im m o n s w ith p o s s e s s io n o f “a f ir e a r m in furthera nce of a drug tra ff i cki ng cr i m e f

or w hi ch he m aybe prosec ut ed i n a court o f th e U n ite d S ta te s , th a t is to k n o w in g ly a n d in te n tio n a lly p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te m a r iju a n a ,” S im m o n s w a s n o t c o n v ic te d o f c o u n t o n e o rth e p r e d ic a te drug tr a f f i c ki ng of f e ns e f orc ounttw o. N one the l e s s , S i m m ons ’ s pos s e s s i on of m a iju a n a w ith th e in te n t to d is tr ib u te , e v e n ab s e n t ac o n v ic tio n o f th a t o f f e n s e , is suff i ci entt o est abl i sh the re qu i re d p re di ca t e f or S i m m on s’ s c on vi ct i on un der § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A ) . See Fry e , 402 F . 3d a t1127 ( hol di ng tha ta de f e nda ntne e d notbe c onvi c t e d of

orc ha r ge d w i th the pr e di c a t e of f e ns e i n or de rt o s us t a i n a c onvi c t i on u n d e r§ 9 2 4 ) c ) ) . Se c o n d , d e s p i t e Si mmo n s ’ s c o n t e n t i o n a tth e p l e a c o l l o q u y , th a tth e f i r e a r ms7

w er e a l l i n o ne cl oset , he sw ore t o and si gn ed the pl eaagre em entthatst at ed that the fi re arm s w er e “ stra t egi ca l l y pl ac ed throu gh ou tthe re si dence t o m ake them avai l abl e t o p rot ec tthe defendantand the m ar i j uana i nsi de the re si dence. ” I n addi t i on , S i m m on s di d n otobj ec tt o the P S I, w hi ch st at ed thatthe fi re arm s w er e f ound “ i n c l os e pr oxi m i ty ” t o the m a r i j ua na . T he r e f

or e , the l a r ge num be rof f i r e a r m s f ound ( 14) , c oupl e d w i th the i rl oc a t i on i ns i de S i m m ons ’ s hous e a nd Si mmo n s ’ s t e s t i mo n y a tth e p l e a c o l l o q u y , th a th e w a s ab l e t o a c c e s s th e f i r e a r ms i f he needed t o, show s thatthe fi re arm s w er e noti nn ocent l y keptas “ w al l -m ou nt ed a n tiq u e [ s ],” b u t w e r e u s e d to p r o te c t h is m a r iju a n a . See T i m m ons , 28 3 F . 3d at 1 2 5 3 ; U ni ted States v. Su arez , 3 1 3 F .3 d 1 2 8 7 , 1 2 9 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ( h o ld in g th a t, w he r e a de f

e nda nt ’ s hous e w a s us e d a s as t or a ge poi ntf ora s ubs t a nt i a l a m ountof c oc a i ne , a nd f

i r e a r m s w e r e f

ound i n s e ve r a l di f

f e r e ntl oc a t i ons thr oughoutthe h o u s e , “th e ju ry c o u ld h a v e r e a s o n ab ly in f e rr e d th a t th e g u n s w e r e to b e u s e d to prot ec t ” the defendant ’ s i nv es tm enti n h i s c ocai ne shi pm ent ). S i m m ons a r gue s tha tno f a c tua l ba s i s e xi s t e d f

orhi s c onvi c t i on be c a us e the da y on w hi c h he s ol d m a r i j ua na t o the C I di f

f e r e d f r om the da y on w hi c h the f ir e a r m s w e r e f

o u n d a n d , th u s , h e c o u ld n o t h a v e p o s s e s s e d th e f ir e a r m s in furthera nce of thatdrug tra ff i cki ng cr i m e. T he re cord es t abl i shed, ho w ever , thatan i nde pe nde ntne xus e xi s t e d be tw e e n the f i r e a r m s a nd S i m m ons ’ s pos s e s s i on ofWe also DENY Appe llee’s motion to dismi ss this appeal base d on an appe al-waiver. 1 Appellant did not knowing ly and voluntarily

waive his right to directly appeal his conviction. 8 m ar i j uana w i th the i nt entt o d i stri bu t e, such thatthe di stri ctcourtw as no tre qu i re d to e s tab lis h a n o th e rn e x u s b e tw e e n th e f ir e a r m s a n d S im m o n s ’s m a r iju a n a s a le . T h e r e f o r e , b a s e d o n th e r e c o r d a s a w h o le , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o u ld h a v e r e a s o n ab ly concl ud ed thatS i m m on s w as gu i l ty of posse ss i ng the fi re arm s i n furthera nce of a drug tr a f f i c ki ng of f e ns e be c a us e a ne xus e xi s t e d be tw e e n the f i r e a r m s a nd the drug tr a f f i c ki ng of f e ns e . A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notpl a i nl y e rri n f i ndi ng th a t th e r e w a s a f

a c tu a l b a s is f

o rS im m o n s ’s g u ilty p le a . B e c a u s e th e r e is n o p la in e rr or , w e ne e d notr e a c h the thi r d a nd f our th pr ongs of

pl a i n e rr orr e vi e w , a nd, thus , w e a f

f i r m S i m m ons ’ s c onvi c t i on. AF F I RME D. 1