United States v. Jarrod Moore, 423 F. App'x 495

Moore pled guilty to one felon-in-possession count and four drug-distribution counts; he appeals Rule 11 challenges.
Authorities executed a January 12, 2007 search warrant at Moore’s Arbor Place residence in Memphis, uncovering narcotics, a handgun, a digital scale, and cash.
Indictment returned September 25, 2007 charged one §922(g) firearm count and four §841(a)(1) distribution counts; Moore pleaded guilty to all five counts.
Change-of-plea hearing on March 5, 2008 included district court explanations of elements for Counts 2–5 and Moore’s acknowledgment of understanding.
Moore admitted possession of the drugs and weapon; the government proffered trial proof but Moore maintained no drug buy occurred.
At sentencing (July 16, 2008), Moore received 174 months total imprisonment; he disputed the alleged drug buy but did not contest the plea validity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there a sufficient factual basis for the pleas?	Moore contends Rule 11(b)(3) was violated due to insufficient basis.	Moore asserts the court inadequately tied intent to distribute to the drugs.	No Rule 11(b)(3) error; basis supported by court’s elements summary and Moore’s admission.
Did the district court adequately instruct Moore on the possession with intent to distribute elements?	Moore argues he was confused about the intent element.	Moore understood elements; court explained them multiple times and he acknowledged understanding.	No Rule 11(b)(1)(G) violation; Moore understood the elements.
Does plain-error review apply and does the record show any impact on substantial rights?	Moore seeks reversal under plain error for Rule 11 deficiencies.	No error occurred; none affected substantial rights.	Moore failed to show plain error affecting substantial rights; affirmance is proper.

United States v. Peters, 15 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 1994) (elements of possession with intent to distribute)
United States v. Valdez, 362 F.3d 903 (6th Cir. 2004) (simple, easily understood crime; need not be complex)
United States v. Edgecomb, 910 F.2d 1309 (6th Cir. 1990) (indictment reading and summary can establish factual basis)
Lalonde v. United States, 509 F.3d 750 (6th Cir. 2007) (plain-error standard and Rule 11 review)
United States v. Van Buren, 804 F.2d 888 (6th Cir. 1986) (Rule 11 factual-basis principle for simple crimes)