United States v. Brock Rowe ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-4564
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BROCK MICHAEL ROWE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:18-cr-00303-NCT-27)
Submitted: September 30, 2020 Decided: October 7, 2020
Before AGEE, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel B. Winthrop, WINTHROP & GAINES MESSICK, PLLC, Statesville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Terry Michael Meinecke, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brock Michael Rowe pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute at least 500 grams of a
mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846, and the district court sentenced him to the
mandatory minimum term of 120 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the Government produced sufficient
evidence to link Rowe to a single conspiracy or to find him responsible for 500 grams of
methamphetamine. Because Rowe pled guilty, we interpret this as a challenge to the
sufficiency of the factual basis supporting Rowe’s plea. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3)
(“Before entering judgment on a guilty plea, the court must determine that there is a factual
basis for the plea.”). Although advised of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief,
Rowe has not done so. The Government declined to file a response brief. We affirm.
Because Rowe did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, we
review the sufficiency of the factual basis for plain error. See United States v. McCoy, 895
F.3d 358, 364 (4th Cir. 2018). “Under the plain error standard, this Court will correct an
unpreserved error if (1) an error was made; (2) the error is plain; (3) the error affects
substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public
reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir.
2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). In the guilty plea context, a defendant establishes
that an error affected his substantial rights by demonstrating “a reasonable probability that,
2
but for the error, he would not have entered the plea.” United States v. Davila, 569 U.S.
597, 608 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
A factual basis is sufficient under Rule 11 if “it establishes the elements of the
offense,” even if it only contains “a bare recitation of the facts.” McCoy, 895 F.3d at 365.
The elements of the offense of conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance are: “(1) an
agreement to distribute [the controlled substance] . . . existed between two or more persons;
(2) the defendant knew of the conspiracy; and (3) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily
became a part of this conspiracy.” United States v. Hackley, 662 F.3d 671, 678 (4th Cir.
2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).
“A single conspiracy exists when the conspiracy had the same objective, it had the
same goal, the same nature, the same geographic spread, the same results, and the same
product.” United States v. Johnson, 54 F.3d 1150, 1154 (4th Cir. 1995) (brackets and
internal quotation marks omitted). “[O]nce a conspiracy has been proved, the evidence
need only establish a slight connection between any given defendant and the conspiracy to
support conviction.” United States v. Allen, 716 F.3d 98, 103 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Here, the factual basis established the existence of a widespread conspiracy to bring
methamphetamine into North Carolina from a number of other states, including Georgia.
Rowe not only participated in bringing a substantial quantity of methamphetamine from
Georgia into North Carolina over a short period of time, he also collaborated with at least
one other known member of the conspiracy in doing so. The fact that Rowe only
participated in the conspiracy for a short time and may not have known its full scope or all
3
of its members does not invalidate his participation. See id. (“[O]ne may be a member of
a conspiracy without knowing its full scope, or all its members, and without taking part in
the full range of its activities or over the whole period of its existence.” (internal quotation
marks omitted)). Thus, the district court did not plainly err in finding the factual basis
sufficient to support Rowe’s conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine.
Counsel also argues that the factual basis did not support Rowe’s acceptance of
responsibility for at least 500 grams of methamphetamine. This argument is meritless.
According to the factual basis, Rowe admitted in a recorded interview that he, in concert
with others, procured a total of at least 18.87 ounces, or 535 grams, of methamphetamine
on his trips to Georgia. This is plainly sufficient to establish that Rowe was responsible
for at least 500 grams of methamphetamine. See McCoy, 895 F.3d at 365. We therefore
conclude that Rowe’s guilty plea is supported by a sufficient factual basis.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the criminal judgment. This
court requires that counsel inform Rowe, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review. If Rowe 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 Rowe.
4
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