UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4914

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

LORENZO LEAK, JR., 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, 

Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00081-JPB-DJJ-1) 

Submitted: March 26, 2009 Decided: April 6, 2009 

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Antoini M. Jones, GIBSON, JONES & ASSOCIATES, LLP, Riverdale, 

Maryland, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States 

Attorney, Paul T. Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

 

 Lorenzo Leak, Jr., pled guilty to one count of 

possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 2252A(a)(5)(A) (2006), as amended by the Effective Child 

Pornography Prosecution Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-358, 122 

Stat. 4001. The district court sentenced Leak to seventy 

months’ imprisonment. Leak timely appealed. 

 On appeal, Leak challenges the district court’s 

acceptance of his guilty plea. Specifically, Leak asserts that 

the district court erred in finding a factual basis to support 

his plea. Leak did not seek to withdraw his plea in the 

district court. This court therefore reviews his arguments 

under the plain error standard. United States v. Mastrapa, 509 

F.3d 652, 657 (4th Cir. 2007). To succeed on this claim, Leak 

must demonstrate: (1) there was error; (2) the error was plain; 

and (3) the error affected his substantial rights. United 

States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34 (1993). Even when these 

conditions are satisfied, we may exercise our discretion to 

notice the error only if it “seriously affects the fairness, 

integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 

736 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). 

 Prior to “entering judgment on a guilty plea, the 

court must determine that there is a factual basis for the 

plea.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3). This “ensures that the court 

2 
3 

make clear exactly what a defendant admits to, and whether those 

admissions are factually sufficient to constitute the alleged 

crime.” United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th Cir. 

1991). There is no error in the acceptance of a plea “so long 

as the district court could reasonably determine that there was 

a sufficient factual basis.” United States v. Martinez, 277 

F.3d 517, 531 (4th Cir. 2002). The factual basis may be 

supported by anything in the record. DeFusco, 949 F.2d at 120. 

Our review of the record convinces us that the district court 

did not err in concluding that an adequate factual basis was 

established to support Leak’s plea. 

 Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

We deny the Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal on wavier 

grounds because the issue raised on appeal is not within the 

scope of the waiver. See United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 

168 (4th Cir. 2005) (“[W]e will enforce [a] waiver to preclude a 

defendant from appealing a specific issue if the record 

establishes that the waiver is valid and that the issue being 

appealed is within the scope of the waiver.”). 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