Court Opinion

ID: 9943526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 19:00:59.7158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:11.529828
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10893            Document: 79-1        Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/23/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit

                                     No. 22-10893
                                                                                     FILED
                                                                             February 23, 2024
                                   ____________
                                                                                   Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America,                                                               Clerk

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

Abutalib Mohamed,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 3:21-CR-310-1
                   ______________________________

Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Graves and Wilson, Circuit
Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Abutalib Mohamed pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawful
possession of ammunition by a prohibited person and one count of conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute marijuana. He appeals his guilty plea on
the conspiracy count. He argues that the district court erred in accepting his
plea because it was not supported by a sufficient factual basis. We affirm.

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10893            Document: 79-1            Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/23/2024

                                        No. 22-10893

                                                I
       In March 2021, Mohamed shot K.H. after arguing with him outside of
a Waffle House in Irving, Texas. In the hospital, K.H. identified Mohamed
to police officers as the person who shot him.
       A few days later, officers arrested Mohamed at his home. Upon
searching his bedroom, officers found 20.3 grams of marijuana, drug-
distribution bags, a digital scale, and Mohamed’s cell phone. A search of the
phone revealed that he was “committing street level and prisoner drug
deals,” among other crimes. Officers also found $6,995 in a box inside the
apartment’s living room. But officers did not determine that the money was
drug proceeds.
       In an interview with officers, Mohamed admitted that he shot K.H.
after an argument about who could deal drugs at the location. He further
admitted that he sold marijuana for $7 a gram.
       Initially, Mohamed was charged with four crimes: two counts of
unlawful possession of ammunition by a prohibited person, 1 one count of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, 2 and one count of
discharge of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. 3 Pursuant
to a written plea agreement, Mohamed agreed to plead guilty to the first three
counts and the Government agreed to dismiss the firearm-discharge count.

       _____________________
       1
           See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
       2
           See 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1).
       3
           See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii).

                                                2
 Case: 22-10893            Document: 79-1           Page: 3     Date Filed: 02/23/2024

                                         No. 22-10893

        To support his guilty plea, Mohamed signed a factual resume in which
he admitted he committed the March 2021 shooting. 4 As relevant to the
conspiracy charge, Mohamed admitted that officers searching his home
found marijuana as well as bags and a scale that he used for marijuana
distribution.       Mohamed further stipulated that he “committed all the
essential elements” of the crimes with which he had been charged.
        In his plea colloquy, Mohamed pleaded guilty. He again agreed that
he committed every element of the crimes to which he pleaded guilty. The
district court then accepted his plea, finding that it was “supported by an
independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of the
offense.”
        The district court sentenced Mohamed to consecutive sentences of
eighty-seven months on count one, eighty-seven months on count two, and
sixty months on count three. Mohamed timely appealed. 5
                                               II
        Mohamed did not object in the district court that there was an
insufficient factual basis to accept his guilty plea to the conspiracy charge.
Accordingly, we review for plain error. 6 “To prevail on plain error review,
[Mohamed] must identify (1) a forfeited error (2) that is clear or obvious,
rather than subject to reasonable dispute, and (3) that affects his substantial

        _____________________
        4
       The resume also discusses a shooting in December 2020, which is the basis of
Mohamed’s other possession-of-ammunition charge.
        5
           In the written plea agreement, Mohamed agreed to waive his right to appeal.
However, “a valid waiver of appeal does not bar review of a claim that the factual basis for
a guilty plea fails to establish the essential elements of the crime of conviction.” United
States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d 308, 312 (5th Cir. 2010). The Government does not contend that
the waiver forbids Mohamed’s appeal.
        6
            United States v. McCall, 833 F.3d 560, 562 (5th Cir. 2016).

                                               3
 Case: 22-10893              Document: 79-1           Page: 4       Date Filed: 02/23/2024

                                           No. 22-10893

rights.” 7 “If he satisfies these three requirements, we may correct the error
at our discretion if it ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public
reputation of judicial proceedings.’” 8
        A district court accepting a guilty plea must “make certain that the
factual conduct admitted by the defendant is sufficient as a matter of law to
establish a violation of the statute to which he entered his plea.” 9 “To
determine whether the factual basis is sufficient, [we] compare[] ‘(1) the
conduct to which the defendant admits with (2) the elements of the offense
charged in the indictment or information.’” 10                         The district court’s
conclusion that there was a sufficient factual basis for the plea is not clear or
obvious error “as long as it is plausible in light of the record as a whole.” 11
Reviewing that conclusion, we may consider “the facts gleaned from the plea
agreement and plea colloquy, the factual findings relied upon in the
presentence report (‘PSR’), as well as ‘fairly drawn’ inferences from the
evidence presented both post-plea and at the sentencing hearing.” 12
        “The essential elements of a drug conspiracy are (1) an agreement by
two or more persons to violate the narcotics laws; (2) a defendant’s
knowledge of the agreement; and (3) his voluntary participation in the

        _____________________
        7
          United States v. Trujillo, 4 F.4th 287, 290 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing Puckett v. United
States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009)).
        8
             Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135).
        9
             Trejo, 610 F.3d at 313 (emphasis omitted) (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3)).
        10
         United States v. Jones, 969 F.3d 192, 196 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v.
Hildenbrand, 527 F.3d 466, 474–75 (5th Cir. 2008)).
        11
           Hildenbrand, 527 F.3d at 475 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United
States v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 560, 584 (5th Cir. 2006)).
        12
             Trejo, 610 F.3d at 317 (quoting Hildenbrand, 527 F.3d at 475).

                                                  4
 Case: 22-10893             Document: 79-1          Page: 5       Date Filed: 02/23/2024

                                          No. 22-10893

agreement.” 13 The agreement forming the basis of the conspiracy “may be
tacit,” and the district court may “infer its existence from circumstantial
evidence.” 14 “[W]hile it is true that a buyer-seller relationship, without
more, will not prove a conspiracy, one becomes a member of a drug
conspiracy if he knowingly participates in a plan to distribute drugs, whether
by buying, selling, or otherwise.” 15
        Mohamed contends that there was an insufficient factual basis to
support his guilty plea on the conspiracy count. He argues that nothing in
the record indicates he agreed with another person to violate the narcotics
laws. The lack of evidence of an agreement, Mohamed further argues,
necessarily means that there is no evidence of the other elements of
conspiracy.
        We disagree. True, Mohamed pleading guilty and admitting he
committed every element of the conspiracy offense—“a legal conclusion on
[his] part”—“is not itself sufficient to support [his] guilty plea.” 16 But the
record in this case nevertheless contained a sufficient factual basis for the
district court to accept Mohamed’s plea. Searching Mohamed’s bedroom,
officers found 20.3 grams of marijuana, drug-distribution bags, and a digital
scale. Officers also found $6,995 in cash in a bag in the apartment’s fireplace.
Further, Mohamed admitted to officers that he possessed a firearm, which

        _____________________
        13
             United States v. Vargas–Ocampo, 747 F.3d 299, 303 (5th Cir. 2014) (en banc).
        14
             See United States v. Crooks, 83 F.3d 103, 106 (5th Cir. 1996).
        15
            United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 333 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (emphasis,
ellipsis, and alterations omitted) (quoting United States v. Maseratti, 1 F.3d 330, 336 (5th
Cir. 1993)).
        16
             United States v. Marek, 238 F.3d 310, 314 (5th Cir. 2001) (en banc).

                                                5
 Case: 22-10893             Document: 79-1          Page: 6      Date Filed: 02/23/2024

                                           No. 22-10893

he had recently disposed of after shooting K.H. This court has considered
such indicia of ongoing drug sales to constitute proof of a drug conspiracy. 17
        A search of Mohamed’s cell phone revealed that he “was committing
street level and prisoner drug deals.” Mohamed admitted to officers that he
sold marijuana for $7 a gram. The drug evidence discovered by officers in
Mohamed’s apartment did not reflect that Mohamed himself grew or
processed marijuana for sale. 18 This evidence too indicates that, “rather than
acting alone,” Mohamed “knowingly participate[d] in a plan to distribute
drugs” with someone—such as a supplier or an accomplice who facilitated
his prison drug deals—“who shared [his] intent to distribute the drugs in
[his] possession.” 19
        Accordingly, the district court did not “clear[ly] or obvious[ly]” err
by accepting Mohamed’s guilty plea. 20
                                       *        *         *
        We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

        _____________________
        17
           See United States v. Escajeda, 8 F.4th 423, 427 (5th Cir. 2021); United States v.
Crooks, 83 F.3d 103, 107 (5th Cir. 1996) (identifying the defendant’s possession of $1,400
in cash as evidence supporting the defendant’s participation in a conspiracy).
        18
           Cf. Escajeda, 8 F.4th at 427 (“The government need not discover and name
Escajeda’s buyers or suppliers to prove that he knowingly participated in some fashion in
the larger objectives of a conspiracy to distribute drugs.” (internal quotations and
alterations omitted)).
        19
          See United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 333 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc)
(emphasis omitted).
        20
             See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

                                                6