United States v. Charles Herbert, 702 F. App'x 170

Defendant Charles Vernon Herbert pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine hydrochloride and was sentenced to 70 months' imprisonment.
Herbert admitted he agreed with co-defendant Alfonzo Knight to distribute cocaine while Knight would conduct transactions and Herbert coordinated from prison.
Herbert did not object below to the sufficiency of the factual basis for his plea or to sentencing facts; appellate review therefore applied plain-error standards for those unpreserved claims.
At sentencing the district court applied an upward variance based on Herbert’s conduct and criminal history, focusing on his recruitment/enlistment of Knight to distribute drugs.
Herbert challenged (1) the factual basis for his plea, (2) procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence (alleging the court relied on erroneous facts, including activity at a mobile home park and enlistment of Knight), and (3) a Sixth Amendment violation for relying on facts not admitted or found by a jury.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding the factual basis was sufficient, the sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable, and no Sixth Amendment violation occurred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of factual basis for guilty plea	Herbert: plea insufficient because he admitted conspiring only with Knight, not other indicted persons	Government: admission of agreement with Knight is enough to support conspiracy conviction	Affirmed — admission of agreement with Knight provided sufficient factual basis for conspiracy conviction
Procedural reasonableness of sentence	Herbert: court relied on erroneous facts (mobile home park involvement; enlistment of Knight); failed to individualize and used collective conduct	Government: court individualized §3553(a) analysis and focused on Herbert’s conduct and history	Affirmed — no clear error; court did not rely on mobile home park and properly considered enlistment as Herbert’s own conduct
Substantive reasonableness of sentence	Herbert: upward variance was based on improper facts making sentence unreasonable	Government: variance supported by totality of circumstances and district court’s assessment	Affirmed — sentence substantively reasonable; district court did not rely on improper factors
Sixth Amendment (facts not admitted/found by jury)	Herbert: court relied on extra-record facts to impose greater sentence than admitted facts allow	Government: sentence within statutory maximum and advisory Guidelines; no Sixth Amendment violation	Affirmed — plain-error review; no violation because sentence was within statutory maximum and advisory range

United States v. Sanya, 774 F.3d 812 (4th Cir. 2014) (plain-error review for unpreserved challenge to plea's factual basis)
United States v. Mastrapa, 509 F.3d 652 (4th Cir. 2007) (district court must ensure factual basis for plea under Rule 11)
United States v. Allen, 716 F.3d 98 (4th Cir. 2013) (elements of conspiracy conviction and sufficiency from agreement with one coconspirator)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review framework for sentencing and §3553(a) individualized assessment)
Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007) (Sixth Amendment prohibits increasing punishment based on facts not found by jury or admitted)