Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01738/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01738-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eugene Edwards
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1738

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Eugene Edwards, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 5, 2006

Filed: May 12, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Eugene Edwards guilty of possessing with intent to distribute

more than 50 grams of cocaine base and more than 500 grams of powder cocaine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and carrying or possessing a firearm in connection

with those drug-trafficking crimes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The

district court1

 sentenced him to a total of 195 months in prison and 5 years of

supervised release. Edwards raises three arguments on appeal.

Appellate Case: 05-1738 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2006 Entry ID: 2044416
-2-

First, Edwards argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to

suppress evidence seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant. We find

no error. See United States v. Solomon, 432 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard

of review). The information within the four corners of the affidavit submitted in

support of the search warrant application established probable cause. To the extent

that extrinsic testimony presented at the second suppression hearing had any bearing

on the probable-cause inquiry, the court expressly discredited it in favor of the

applying officer’s testimony.

Second, Edwards argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his drug

convictions. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, as

we must, we cannot say that a reasonable juror must have harbored a reasonable

doubt regarding an essential element of the offenses. See United States v. Howard,

427 F.3d 554, 557 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review; elements of offense).

Third, Edwards argues that his firearm conviction is invalid under Bailey v.

United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995), because he did not actively employ the firearm.

Edwards is mistaken because he was not convicted of “using” the firearm: he was

convicted of “carrying” or “possessing” it, an offense that does not require active

employment. See United States v. Alaniz, 235 F.3d 386, 389 (8th Cir. 2000), cert.

denied, 533 U.S. 911 (2001).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1738 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2006 Entry ID: 2044416