United States v. Javon Baker, 571 F. App'x 258

Baker pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana and to possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
Baker appeals only the firearms conviction, arguing the Rule 11 hearing did not adequately explain the appellate waiver and there was no sufficient factual basis for the firearms conviction.
The district court determined Baker was competent, that his plea was voluntary, and that the appellate waiver in his plea agreement was properly explained; the court substantially complied with Rule 11.
There is some circuit uncertainty about whether a waiver forecloses a factual-basis challenge, but the court declines to rely on waiver and addresses the merits.
The government proffer showed substantial drug activity and firearms at Baker’s home, including two loaded handguns and significant cash, with marijuana found throughout the house and Baker admitting ownership of the firearms and drug dealing.
The district court’s findings supported that the firearms were used to further Baker’s drug trafficking, giving a sufficient factual basis for the § 924(c) conviction, and the plea was valid.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the appellate waiver foreclose Baker's challenge?	Baker argues the waiver does not bar his challenge.	The government contends the waiver is valid and enforceable.	Waiver valid and enforceable.
Was there a sufficient factual basis for the firearms plea?	Baker contends there was an inadequate factual basis for the plea.	The government shows a sufficient factual basis for the plea.	Sufficient factual basis established; plea valid.

United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621 (4th Cir. 2010) (upholds appellate waivers in plea agreements)
United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162 (4th Cir. 2005) (valid appellate waiver precludes issues within waiver scope)
United States v. Bell, 359 F. App’x 442 (4th Cir. 2010) (uncertainty whether waiver forecloses factual-basis challenge)
United States v. Carter, 267 F. App’x 203 (4th Cir. 2008) (valid waiver forecloses certain challenges)
United States v. Ketchum, 550 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2008) (Rule 11 requires fact basis; district court wide discretion)
United States v. Lomax, 293 F.3d 701 (4th Cir. 2002) (possession of firearm may advance drug trafficking)
United States v. Maldonado-Garcia, 446 F.3d 227 (1st Cir. 2006) (possession may be actual or constructive)
United States v. Bailey, 329 F. App’x 439 (4th Cir. 2009) (possession of firearm may be actual or constructive)
United States v. Benson, 63 F. App’x 88 (4th Cir. 2003) (unpublished; evidence contrasted but distinguishable)