Joseph Dale Antley pled guilty to using and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime (Count 1), * to possessing with intent to distribute cocaine (Counts 2, 3), and possessing with intent to distribute marijuana (Count 4). Antley was sentenced to 132 months imprisonment, twelve months for Counts 2, 3, and 4 and 120 months consecutively for Count 1. On appeal he alleges that the district court erred in accepting his guilty plea to Count 1 because there was an inadequate factual basis to support the plea. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Because Antley did not attempt to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, we review the issue for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 527 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 899, 123 S.Ct. 200, 154 L.Ed.2d 169 (2002). A district court possesses wide discretion in determining whether a sufficient factual basis exists, and its acceptance of a guilty plea will be reversed only for an abuse of that discretion. United States v. Mitchell, 104 F.3d 649, 652 (4th Cir. 1997).

Antley alleges that there was insufficient evidence to show that he possessed and discharged his firearm in furtherance of his drug trafficking crimes. We find that there was a sufficient factual basis given at the plea hearing to support the fact that Antley’s weapon was possessed in furtherance of his drug trafficking business. United States v. Lomax, 293 F.3d 701, 705 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1031, 123 S.Ct. 555, 154 L.Ed.2d 448 (2002) (citing factors). Thus, we find that the district court did not plainly err by accepting Antley’s guilty plea to Count 1. Martinez, 277 F.3d at 527. Accordingly, we affirm.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED