Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-03026/USCOURTS-ca8-07-03026-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Huntley
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3026

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Thomas Huntley, *

* [PUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 15, 2008

Filed: April 18, 2008

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, JOHN R. GIBSON and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Huntley was charged in a four-count indictment with drug and firearm

offenses. He pleaded guilty to two firearm possession counts and went to trial on the

drug count and an additional firearm count charging that he “knowing[ly] used a

firearm . . . during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime” in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(1)(A). The jury convicted Huntley of both charges, and his sentence

included the sixty-month consecutive sentence mandated by § 924(c)(1)(A)(I). He

appeals the § 924(c)(1)(A) conviction, arguing instructional error. With the appeal

pending, the Supreme Court overruled our prior interpretation of § 924(c)(1)(A), as

relevant here, in Watson v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 579 (2007). Accordingly, we

Appellate Case: 07-3026 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2008 Entry ID: 3425101
-2-

must reverse the § 924(c)(1)(A) conviction because the district court’s instruction,

though correct when given, was inconsistent with Watson. 

At trial, government witness Michael McCullock testified that he traded a

Ruger pistol to Huntley in exchange for methamphetamine. Huntley testified in his

own behalf that he instead purchased the pistol from McCullock for cash. Over

Huntley’s timely objection, the district court instructed that the jury could find

Huntley guilty of “using” the firearm in connection with a drug trafficking crime if

“the firearm in question was bartered or received in exchange for methamphetamine.”

The instruction when given was consistent with this court’s decision in United States

v. Cannon, 88 F.3d 1495, 1509 (8th Cir. 1996). But the Supreme Court has now held

to the contrary “that a person does not ‘use’ a firearm under § 924(c)(1)(A) when he

receives it in trade for drugs.” Watson, 128 S. Ct. at 586. 

When a district court’s instruction is proper when given but the Supreme Court

changes the law while the defendant’s direct appeal challenging the instruction is

pending, there is instruction error. The conviction must be reversed unless the error

was harmless. See United States v. Sheppard, 219 F.3d 766, 768-69 (8th Cir. 2000).

Here, we cannot conclude the error was harmless because the challenged instruction

permitted the jury to convict Huntley of violating § 924(c)(1)(A) solely on the basis

of McCullock’s testimony that he traded the pistol to Huntley for methamphetamine.

Cf. United States v. Schrader, 10 F.3d 1345, 1347-50 (8th Cir. 1993).

On appeal, we are urged to “find, as a matter of law, that Huntley’s receipt of

the firearm did not constitute ‘use’ of the firearm” for purposes of § 924(c)(1)(A).”

This we may not do. Following the jury’s verdict, Huntley filed a motion for

judgment of acquittal. However, the motion challenged only the sufficiency of the

evidence that he was guilty of the methamphetamine distribution offense. There was

no post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal on the § 924(c)(1)(A) count under

Rule 29(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Absent a timely Rule 29(c)

motion, we have serious doubt whether any court may order an acquittal, as opposed

Appellate Case: 07-3026 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2008 Entry ID: 3425101
-3-

to a new trial, after the jury has returned a guilty verdict. See Carlisle v. United

States, 517 U.S. 416 (1996). But even if we have such power, Huntley has given us

no factual basis to do so, certainly not on plain error review. See United States v.

Raether, 82 F.3d 192, 194 (8th Cir. 1996) (“We are not permitted simply to speculate

about what the jury would have decided if the district court had properly instructed

them.”). Accordingly, we reverse the conviction and sentence on Count 3, Possession

of a Firearm During the Commission of a Drug Trafficking Crime, and remand the

case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-3026 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/18/2008 Entry ID: 3425101