Case Information
*1 Before W OOD Chief Judge , and F LAUM and E ASTERBROOK , Circuit Judges .
E ASTERBROOK , Circuit Judge
. As part of a plea bargain, Anthony Adams pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit armed robbery affecting interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. §1951(a), and to possessing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A). Sentenced to 87 months’ imprisonment, he asks us to set aside his plea and remand for a trial. His argument rests on Rosemond v. *2 United States , 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014), which was decided after he entered the plea (though before he was sentenced).
Rosemond holds that a person cannot be convicted of aid-‐‑ ing and abetting a violation of §924(c) unless he has enough time to drop out of joint criminal activity after learning that a confederate is armed. We stated in United States v. Newman 755 F.3d 543, 547 (7th Cir. 2014), that the rules of accountabil-‐‑ ity for aiding and abetting track those of conspiracy law un-‐‑ der Pinkerton v. United States , 328 U.S. 640 (1946). Adams puts together with and concludes that there are new, and more stringent, rules for co-‐‑conspirator liability. But that’s not what either Rosemond or Newman held; instead adapted the rules of aiding-‐‑and-‐‑ abetting liability to make them more like the ap-‐‑ proach to conspiracy.
The indictment charged Adams with conspiring to rob a drug stash house. Thieves think them good targets because they may hold large supplies of drugs and cash, and victims cannot report the offense to the police. But Adams was caught in a sting, proposed by an informant working with federal agents. Adams was eager to participate and did not raise an entrapment defense. Cf. United States v. Mayfield , 771 F.3d 417 (7th Cir. 2014) (en banc). Now, however, he rues the guilty plea and contends that he cannot be held accountable for three firearms that were in a van when he was arrested.
The plea agreement sets out the factual basis for the con-‐‑ victions. Adams signed this agreement and adopted its con-‐‑ tents in open court. According to the narration, a conspirator (not the informant) took a toolbox from one van and moved it to another as part of the group’s preparation for the theft. The toolbox was opened after the arrest and found to con-‐‑ *3 tain three firearms. Adams maintains that he was not the person who moved the toolbox and did not know what it contained. But he did acknowledge, as part of the factual ba-‐‑ sis for the §1951(a) conviction, that he and the other con-‐‑ spirators “agreed to rob a purported stash house of at least 50 kilograms of cocaine, using firearms.” Being armed thus was part of the agreement. With respect to the §924(c) con-‐‑ viction, Adams acknowledged that he “knowingly possessed a firearm” and that he had agreed with five other persons “to rob a purported stash house of at least 50 kilograms of cocaine, and to use firearms in furtherance of the robbery.” Finally, Adams acknowledged that “in furtherance of and as a foreseeable consequence of that agreement, a toolbox con-‐‑ taining” firearms was placed in the van.
These acknowledgments suffice to hold Adams account-‐‑ able for the firearms, no matter who put the toolbox in the van and whether or not Adams knew what was in it. He conceded that the presence of firearms was a “foreseeable consequence” of his agreement to rob a stash house “using firearms.” Using weapons was part of the plan. Pinkerton makes one conspirator liable for the foreseeable acts of oth-‐‑ ers within the scope of the agreement. The provision of weapons was part of the plan, and thus within the conspira-‐‑ cy’s scope, and what’s part of a plan is foreseeable to the planners. Adams never attempted to withdraw from the conspiracy, so he is accountable for his confederates’ fore-‐‑ seeable acts.
Nothing in alters this assessment. The Court dealt with a situation in which one criminal participant un-‐‑ expectedly produced a gun, and Rosemond was arrested be-‐‑ fore he had an opportunity either to assist or to walk away. *4 The Court held that “a defendant may be convicted of abet-‐‑ ting a §924(c) violation only if his intent reaches beyond a simple drug sale, to an armed one.” 134 S. Ct. at 1248. And whether the defendant had the necessary intent, the Court concluded, depended in part on whether he anticipated his colleague’s possession of a gun. If he did, then he was cul-‐‑ pable; if he did not, then it mattered whether he had a chance to stop assisting the criminal venture (i.e., to walk away) after learning that someone else was packing.
Adams admitted planning that one or more of the con-‐‑ spirators would be armed. His intent thus “reache[d] beyond a simple drug [theft], to an armed one.” If this had been a prosecution for aiding and abetting, there would not have been a problem under Rosemond . No more is there a problem when the charge is conspiracy. It does not matter under , or , whether Adams knew how many guns would be used, who would supply them, and whether they would come in a toolbox, a holster, a car’s se-‐‑ cret compartment, or a picnic basket; it is enough if the crim-‐‑ inal agreement entailed use of a firearm. Adams is not enti-‐‑ tled to withdraw his plea. FFIRMED