United States v. Larry Stanford, Jr.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 28, 2025
• Docket: 23-4748
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-4748 Doc: 43 Filed: 04/28/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-4748

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LARRY MARNECUS STANFORD, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:22-cr-00140-D-RJ-5)

Submitted: April 24, 2025 Decided: April 28, 2025

Before RICHARDSON and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: R. Brent Walker, LAW OFFICE OF R. BRENT WALKER, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, Lucy Partain Brown, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-4748 Doc: 43 Filed: 04/28/2025 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Larry Marnecus Stanford, Jr., appeals his conviction following his guilty plea to

maintaining a place for manufacturing, distributing, and storing controlled substances, and

aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1), and possession

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

§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i). On appeal, Stanford argues the district court plainly erred because his

plea to possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime was not supported

by an adequate factual basis. We affirm.

Because Stanford did not challenge the factual basis for his guilty plea in the district

court, we review for whether the district court plainly erred in accepting his plea. See

United States v. Stitz, 877 F.3d 533,536 (4th Cir. 2017). The district court must ensure that

there is a factual basis for the plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3); United States v. Taylor-

Saunders, 88 F.4th 516, 522 (4th Cir. 2023). “The 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.” Stitz, 877 F.3d at 536 (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court may

reach this conclusion based on “anything that appears on the record.” Id. (internal

quotation marks omitted).

To convict a defendant of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking

crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the Government must establish that the defendant “(1)

committed a drug trafficking offense and (2) possessed a firearm (3) in furtherance of that

drug offense.” United States v. Dennis, 19 F.4th 656, 667 (4th Cir. 2021) (citing United

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-4748 Doc: 43 Filed: 04/28/2025 Pg: 3 of 3

States v. Lomax, 293 F.3d 701, 704-05 (4th Cir. 2002)). The Government proffered that,

when searching Stanford’s house, law enforcement found Stanford’s 12-gauge shotgun

leaning against a wall in the kitchen where they also found packaging materials: including

digital scales, a vacuum sealer, plastic baggies, a cup with cocaine residue, and a cocaine

press. Officers also found cocaine and marijuana outside Stanford’s house near a tree and

three hydrocodone pills. The Government maintained that Stanford possessed the shotgun

in furtherance of a drug conspiracy and a conspiracy to maintain a premises for drug

trafficking. Stanford argues that the Government’s factual proffer was insufficient to

establish a factual basis to support his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) as the majority

of the drugs were found outside the house. The Government’s factual proffer sufficiently

established that Stanford possessed the firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime

because the firearm was near drug packaging and distribution materials and was easily

accessible. See Dennis, 19 F.4th at 667-68 (discussing factors relevant to determining

whether firearm furthered drug trafficking crime). Accordingly, we discern no plain error

in the district court’s acceptance of Stanford’s plea. The Government’s factual proffer

established a sufficient factual basis for the § 924(c) offense.

We therefore affirm the criminal judgment. 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