Court Opinion

ID: 9381123
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 21:01:03.649798+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:30.325000
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7355      Doc: 47         Filed: 03/20/2023     Pg: 1 of 5

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-7355

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ARCHIE ORLANDO PORTER,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Asheville. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (1:19-cr-00106-MOC-WCM-1)

        Submitted: March 16, 2023                                         Decided: March 20, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Samuel Bayness Winthrop, WINTHROP & GAINES MESSICK, PLLC,
        Statesville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States
        Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7355      Doc: 47            Filed: 03/20/2023   Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Archie Orlando Porter pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to

        possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

        § 924(c)(1)(A). In exchange for Porter’s guilty plea, the Government agreed to dismiss six

        other charges, including the charge of distributing, dispensing, and possessing with intent

        to distribute and dispense a quantity of methamphetamine, in violation 21 U.S.C.

        § 841(a)(1), which was the predicate drug trafficking crime for Porter’s § 924(c)(1)(A)

        conviction.   The district court sentenced Porter to five years’ imprisonment—the

        mandatory minimum for his offense.

               On appeal, Porter’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

        U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning

        whether Porter’s § 924(c)(1)(A) conviction is infirm because Porter did not plead guilty to

        the predicate drug trafficking crime and whether the record establishes that Porter’s

        possession of the firearm was in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. We affirm.

               Counsel first questions whether Porter’s § 924(c)(1)(A) conviction is infirm because

        Porter did not plead guilty to the predicate drug trafficking crime. We have held that “[18

        U.S.C.] § 924(c) convictions do not require a conviction on the predicate drug trafficking

        offense,” but there must be “at least some showing by the government that a reasonable

        jury could have convicted on the predicate drug offense.” United States v. Carter, 300

        F.3d 415, 425 (4th Cir. 2002); see United States v. Crawley, 2 F.4th 257, 264 (4th Cir.

        2021) (reaffirming that principle).

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7355      Doc: 47          Filed: 03/20/2023        Pg: 3 of 5

               The written factual basis for Porter’s guilty plea establishes that a reasonable jury

        could have convicted him of distributing, dispensing, or possessing with the intent to

        distribute or dispense a quantity of methamphetamine. Specifically, the factual basis

        reflects that police officers encountered Porter as a passenger in a vehicle and arrested him

        based on an outstanding warrant. Upon searching the vehicle, the officers found a bag

        containing a handgun in the area where Porter had been sitting. The officers also found an

        empty magazine, empty plastic baggies, and about $400 in cash in that area. A search of

        Porter’s person at the jail produced 4.7 grams of methamphetamine, and a review of text

        messages on Porter’s cellphone revealed that he sold methamphetamine. Porter also

        admitted to the officers that he sold methamphetamine. And Porter later acknowledged

        that he intended to distribute the methamphetamine found on his person. Based on those

        facts, a reasonable jury could have convicted Porter of distributing, dispensing, or

        possessing with intent to distribute or dispense a quantity of methamphetamine. We thus

        discern no infirmity in Porter’s § 924(c)(1)(A) conviction based on the fact that he did not

        also plead guilty to the predicate drug trafficking crime.

               Counsel next questions whether the record establishes that Porter’s possession of

        the handgun was in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. We construe counsel’s

        argument as a challenge to the sufficiency of the factual basis supporting Porter’s guilty

        plea. “Before 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). The factual basis requirement

        “ensures that the court make clear exactly what a defendant admits to, and whether those

        admissions are factually sufficient to constitute the alleged crime.” United States v.

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7355       Doc: 47          Filed: 03/20/2023      Pg: 4 of 5

        DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th Cir. 1991). We have recognized that “[t]he district court

        possesses wide discretion in finding a factual basis, and it need only be subjectively

        satisfied that there is a sufficient factual basis for a conclusion that the defendant committed

        all of the elements of the offense.” United States v. Stitz, 877 F.3d 533, 536 (4th Cir. 2017).

        In making its factual basis finding, the district court may rely on “anything that appears on

        the record.” United States v. Mastrapa, 509 F.3d 652, 660 (4th Cir. 2007).

               To prove a § 924(c)(1)(A) offense, the Government must show that the defendant’s

        possession of a firearm “furthered, advanced, or helped forward a drug trafficking crime.”

        United States v. Lomax, 293 F.3d 701, 705 (4th Cir. 2002). In assessing whether the

        Government has made that showing, we consider a number of nonexclusive factors,

        including “the type of drug offense, the type of firearm, its proximity to drugs and drug

        profits, its accessibility, whether the firearm is illegally possessed, whether the firearm is

        stolen, whether the firearm is loaded, and the general circumstances surrounding the

        possession.” United States v. Moody, 2 F.4th 180, 192 (4th Cir. 2021).

               We are satisfied that the written factual basis establishes that Porter’s possession of

        the handgun was in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. As mentioned, officers

        discovered the handgun—a common tool of the drug trafficking trade—in close proximity

        to empty plastic baggies and a large amount of cash. See United States v. Manigan, 592

        F.3d 621, 629 (4th Cir. 2010) (“A handgun . . . has been deemed a tool of the drug trade

        because it is easy to conceal yet deadly.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The handgun

        was also near where Porter had been sitting in the vehicle, so it was close to the

        methamphetamine on Porter’s person, and it was accessible to Porter. Moreover, Porter

                                                       4
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7355         Doc: 47       Filed: 03/20/2023      Pg: 5 of 5

        could not legally possess the handgun based on a prior felony conviction. And Porter

        admitted that he possessed the handgun to protect his drug “enterprise.” We therefore

        conclude that the district court properly found a factual basis supported Porter’s guilty plea.

        See United States v. Moore, 769 F.3d 264, 270 (4th Cir. 2014) (holding that requisite

        connection between handgun and drug trafficking crime existed where handgun was found

        in defendant’s apartment along with drugs, items used for packaging drugs, and large

        amount of cash and defendant could not legally possess firearm).

               In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

        found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We thus affirm the district court’s amended

        judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Porter, in writing, of the right to petition

        the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Porter requests that a petition

        be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may

        move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state

        that a copy thereof was served on Porter.

               We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

        adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                         AFFIRMED

                                                      5