# United States Court of App eals F orth eSeve nt h Ci r c uit Chicago, Illin ois 60604 A rg ued October27, 20 09 Deci ded M ar ch 1, 20 10 B efo re FR A N K H . E A ST E R B R O O K , Chie f Judg e T E R E N C E T . E V A N S, Cir cu i tJudg e A N N C L A IR E W IL L IA M S, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 09- 1420 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA,

P la intif f-A pp ellee,
v. C HA RLES S PAU LD I NG,

D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es D istri ct C ou rt forthe N orthe rn Di st r i cto fI l l i no i s, Ea st er n Di vi si o n. N o. 06 CR 812 J ohn F. Grady, J udg e .
O R D E R
F o l l o wi nga b en cht r i al, Char l es S pau l di ngwas c o nv i ct ed o fc ar r y i nga fi r ea r m dur i ng an d in re lat ion to a d ru g tra ffick in g offen se in vio lat ion of 18 U .S.C . § 92 4(c )(1) (A ). O n ap p ea l, 

### NO NPRE CE DE NT IAL D ISP OSIT ION Tobec ite d only

in ac c orda

nc ewith Fe d. R. App. P. 32.12 N o. 09

- 1420

Sp au ld in g c h alle n ge s t h e su fficie n c y of t h e e vid en c e a n d th e c on st itu tio n alit y of § 92 4(c )’s “ in r el at i o n t o ” pr o nga s appl i ed to hi m i n l i g hto fthe S upr eme Co ur t’ s d ecision i n D i s t r i ctof C o lum bia v. Heller, 1 28 S
. Ct
. 27 83 ( 20 08 )
. Bec au se the e vi den ce i s su f fi ci en t to pr o ve S pau l di ng ca r r i ed th e fir ea r m “ i n r el at i o n t o ” a dr ugt r affi ck i ngc ha r g e an d S pau l di ng ’ s S ec o nd A m en d m en t rig h ts w er e n ot vio lat ed , w e a ffirm h is c on vic tio n .
I . B AC KGR OUND D u rin g a n inv es tig at ion of a d ru g c on sp ira c y, f e d e ra l ag en ts rec or d ed m u ltip le conve rs ati ons between d efendant C harl es Spaul ding and seve ra l other p eopl e. On S eptem ber 2, 20 05 , age n ts list en ed to a con ve rs at ion in w h ich Sp au ld in g ask ed a coc ain e b u ye r to ge t h im am m unit i on f ora . 22 cal iber hand gun. The next day, S pauldi ng to l d his br othe r he would ta ke a tax i to th e broth er’s hou se an d bring him coca ine, a ha nd gu n and am m un iti on . O fficers sto pp ed the taxi and s ear ched Spaul ding. I n Spaul ding’ s l eft pocket, offi cer s f ound a l oaded an d o p e r a b l e . 2 2 c a l ib e r h a n d g u n . In h i s r i g h tp o c k e t, th e y f o u n d a b o x o fa mmun i t i o n a nd 72. 6 g ra m s o fco cai ne. Spaul ding w as charg ed w i th m ult i ple co unts o fposs ess i on a nd i nt en t to dist ribute coca i ne. He w as al so charg ed w i th o ne co unt ofcar ry i ng a fi re ar m duri ng and i n re l ati on t o a drug t ra ffi cki ng o f fense, i n vi ol ati on o f18 U
. S. C. § 9 24( c) ( 1) ( A )
. S pauldi ng pl eaded gui l ty to one count ofconspir acy to d i str ibute cocai ne and one count ofp oss ess i on of72
. 6 g ra m s o f coca i ne with i ntent to dist ribute. S pauldi ng m ove d to dism i ss the fi re ar m co unt, as ser ti ng tha t 18 U
. S
. C. § 92 4( c) ( 1) ( A) vi o l at ed hi s S ec o nd Am en dm en t r i g htt o k ee p a nd b ea r a r m s i n l i g ht o fthe S upr eme Co ur t’ s dec i si o n i n D istrict of C o l u m b i a v . Heller, 1 28 S
. Ct
. 2 78 3 ( 20 08 )
. T he dist ri ct c ourtdeni ed hi s m oti on to dism i ss and S pauldi ng pro ceeded to a bench tr i al o n the § 924( c) char ge. The g ove rnm ent pr ese nted i ts evi dence and Spaul ding prese nt ed the add i ti onal e v i d e nc e o fa te l e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n i n wh i c h a c o - d e f e n d a n tt o l d S p a u l d i n gth a tt wo i ndi vi dual s ha d c o nfr o nt ed S pau l di ng ’ s br o th e r . T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tfo u n d S pau l di ngg ui l tya nd t he n de ni e d a mo t i o n f o r a n e w t r i a l
. S pa ul di ngt i mel y a pp e a l e d.

II. A N A L Y S IS A. Se c t i o n 9 2 4 ( c ) ’ s “ I n Re l a t i o n T o ” Re qui r e me nt W e hav e s ai d that a def endant posi ng a suf fi ci ency ofthe evi dence chall enge “f aces a near l y i nsurm ountabl e hurdl e. ” Uni t e d S t at e s v. M orri s , 5 76 F. 3d 661, 66 5- 66 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( ci tat i ons om i tte d). To succeed, Spauldi ng m ust show that no r at i o na l f ac tfi nde r, b as ed o n theN o. 09

- 1420 3

ev id en c e p re se n te d attria l, c ou ld find th e d efe n d an t g u ilty b ey on d a rea so n ab le d ou b t. Id. at 66 6. We r ev i ew s uffi ci en cy o fthe e vi den ce c ha l l en g es i n the l i g htmos t f av o r ab l e to the go ve rn m en t. Id. Section 924(c) ofTitle 18 ofthe U
. S. Cod e m akes it a crim e t o u se or carry a firearm “dur i nga nd i n r el at i o n t o a ny c r i m e o fv i o l en ce o r dr ug tr affi ck i ngc r i m e. ” Her e, S pau l di ng d oes not d isput e th athe was c ar r y i nga fi r ea r m , a nd he pl ea ded g ui l tyt o a dr ugt r affi ck i ng cr i m e. H e ar g ue s ho wev er, th at th e ev i den ce was i ns uffi ci en t to pr o ve he was ca r r y i ngthe fire ar m “in rela tio n to ” h is d ru g t ra ffick in g c rim e. I n U nite d State s v. Sm it h , the Supr e me Co ur ti nter prete d § 92 4( c) ’ s “ i n re l ati on t o” phrase as “expansi ve. ” 508 U
. S. 22 3, 23 7 ( 1993 )
. At a m i ni m um , “the fi re ar m m ust hav e s om e purpose o r eff ec t wi thre spe ctto the drugtr affi ck i ngcr i m e; i ts pr es en ce o r i nv o l ve m en t ca nno t be the re sul t o facc i dent orco i nci dence. ” Id. at 238. Put anothe r w ay, the gun m ust “f aci l i tat e, or have the pot e nt i al of

f ac i l i t at i ng,” th e t ra ffick in g off en se . Id. ( em phasi s a dd ed). Thi s co urt has re peatedl y hel d that c ar ry i ng a gun w hi le c om m itti ng a drug tr affi cki ng o f f ense provi des en ou gh ev id en c e o f th e “ p ot en tia l to fa c ilit a t e ” to su st ain a § 9 24 (c ) co n vic tio n . See U nited St at e s v. M ol i na , 102 F. 3d 928, 93 2 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96) ( “I n est abl i shi ng wh ethera gun . . . was car ri ed in re lat ion to a d ru g tra ffick in g crim e, if th e d ru gs an d gu n are to ge th er in t h e s am e p lac e itis n ea rly an ine sc ap ab le c on c lu sio n th at th ey sa tis fy t h e in re lat ion to p ro n g of § 9 24 (c )(1) .”); see a lso U nite d State s v. Franklin , 54 7 F
. 3d 72 6, 73 2 ( 7th Ci r . 20 08 ) ( “F r an k l i n ha d b o ththe dr ug s an d th e gun i n th e car at th e sam e tim e. Th at p ro x im it y i s suffi cient to establish a viol ation of § 924(c)(1). ”). Sp au ld in g c on te n d s t h er e w as in su fficie n t ev id en c e t o p ro ve th at h e c ar rie d th e g u n “in re l ati on t o” a drug del i ver y. Spaul ding ar gues that hi s i s an i nstance w here the gun’s pre sence w as m er el y a coi nci dence – he m ade a drug del i ver y, and w hi l e doi ng so , he ha pp ened to have a g un . S pa ul di ngt e l l s u s h e wa s j us tb e i ngh e l pful, de l i v e r i ngthe g unb e c a us e h i s b roth er needed to prot ect hi m sel f( f orr eas ons not connect ed to drugs) , and that he had n o fe ar s o r ne ed f o r pr o te ct i o n fr o m hi s br o th er . But, i n U nite d State s v. Stott, thi s co urt up hel d a § 924( c) co nv i ct i o n unde r si m i l ar ci r cumst an ce s. 24 5 F
. 3d 89 0, 9 06

- 07( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1)
. In Stott, a dr ug custo m erbr ought a g un to hi s drug supp l i erbec ause the supp l i ern eeded a gun forper sonal prot ecti on. A s i s the case here , the perso n hol ding the gun, the dr ug cust om er, cl ai m ed he was not the perso n w ho needed prot ecti on. There, we hel d that the f act fi nd erco uld co ncl ud e that the gun w as t o be del i ver ed f or( 1) the supp l i er ’ s per sonalpro tect i on, and ( 2) any potenti al p ro te c tio n n ee d ed f o r t h e d r u g s u p p lier’ s d ru gs . Id. at 907. The sam e i s t rue here
. The f act that hi s br othe r m ay have needed prot ecti on cr eat es a pos sibi lity t hat S pauldi ng was4 N o. 09

- 1420

co nc er ne d abo utthe s afety o fhi s dr ugde l i ve r y o r the s afety o fthe dr ug s po st
- del i ve r y . T he a s s e r t i o n s h e ma k e s –h i s b r o t h e r n e e d e d th e p r o t e c t i o n ; th i s wa s me r e l y a d e l i v e r y o ft wo i tem s a t the sa m e t i m e –equal l y s up portthe p rosec uti on’ s v i ew o fthe case . The gun w as prese nt to pro tectS pauldi ng and the drugs durin g h is d eliveryo fthe coca i ne. Contr ar y t o S pau l di ng ’ s ar g um en t, the f ac ts o fthi s ca se do notext en d ourpre ce den t a ny fur th ertha n the facts of Stott
. F ur th er m o r e, the r e i s a f r eque nt l y no te d, wel l- k no wn co nne ct i o n b et wee n g uns a nd drugs: “w eapons ar e too l s ofthe tr ade ofdrug deal er s. ” U nited Sta tes v. C o o per, 19 F. 3d 1154 , 1163 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) ( ci tat i on o m i tte d). Thi s i s be cause guns ar e fre quentl y use d to i nti m i date as so c iat es o r p ro vid e s ec u rit y d u rin g d ru g d ea ls. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pike, 21 1 F
. 3d 385, 38 9 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 0)
. S pau l di ngc ar r i ed a l o ade d and ope r ab l e . 22 c al ibe r ha ndg un i n h i s l eft po ck et, a nd the dr ugs and a bo x ofam m unit i on i n hi s r i ght poc ket
. Vi ew i ng the se f acts i n the l i ght m ost f av o r ab l e to the g o ve r nm en t, a f ac t fi nde r co ul d r at i o na l l y c o nc l ude tha t th e l o ade d g un i n o ne p oc ke t w as m ea n t to p ro te c t th e d ru gs in t h e o th er p oc ke t in ca se so m et h in g h ap p en ed w h ile th e d ru gs w er e in tra n sit
. As a fi na l m at te r, we r ej ec t S pau l di ng ’ s r el i an ce o n A buelh a w a v . U nited Sta tes , 12 9 S
. Ct. 21 02 (20 09 ). Ab u e l ha wa i nter prete d the s tatutor y m eani ng o f“f aci l i tat e” i n 21 U
. S. C. § 8 43( b) and hel d that a perso n cannot be convi cted of f aci l i tat i ng the fel ony ofdrug dist ributi on j ust b y u sin g a p h on e t o m ak e a d ru g p u rc h as e, bu t m u st rat h er “a id , ab et o r as sis t” t h e c rim e. Id. at 2108
. Thi s ho l ding has no bea ri ng o n the sta tutory in te rp re ta ti on o f“i n re l ati on t o” i n 18 U. S
. C. § 92 4, nordoe s i t o f f erany i ns i g hton whatthe Supr eme Cou r t m ea nti n Sm it h w h en it sta ted thata gun m ust hav e th e p ote nti al o f“f aci l i tat i ng” a drug cri m e. 5 08 U
. S. at23 8. Furtherm or e, ev en ifit did have som e bear i ng on our anal ysi s o fthe “i n re l ati on t o” prong of § 9 24( c) , the gov er nm ent w oul d o nl y need to show that the gun had the potenti al to ai d, ass i st o r a b et th e d ru g t ra ffick in g. S e eAb u e l ha wa , 129 S. C t. at 21 06 (20 09 ); Sm it h , 5 0 8 U.S
. at23 8. H er e, the g o ve r nm en t ha s m eti ts b ur den
. T he e vi den ce was s uffi ci en t to s ho w tha t th e g un h ad th e p ot en tia l to a ss ist Sp au ld in g in th e s u c c es sfu l tra n sfe r of h is d ru gs b y p ro te c tin g h im d uring t r a n s it . So, even i f Ab u e l ha wa has any i m pact o n thi s ca se, the gov er nm ent had su fficie n t e vid en c e t o s u st ain th e § 92 4(c ) co n vic tio n .
B. N o Seco nd A m end m ent V i ol at i on S p a u l d i n ga l s o p u r s u e s a S e c o n d Ame n d me n tc h a l l e n g e t o hi s 1 8 U. S
. C § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A) co nv i ct i o n i n l i g hto fthe S upr eme Co ur t’ s r ec en t dec i si o n i n D istrict of C o lum bia v. Heller, 12 8 S
. Ct
. 2 78 3 ( 20 08 )
. In H eller, th e Sup rem e C ou rt hel d that the S eco nd A m endm ent pr ote cts anN o. 09

- 1420 5

i nd i vi du al r i ght t o posse ss a fi re ar m and to use that fi re ar m f or tr adit i onal l y l aw ful pu rpos es. H eller, 128 S. C t. at 2797 -98. Sp au lding does not ch all en ge th e con stitut ionali ty of § 924 itself, b u t in st ea d arg u es th at th e“ in rela tio n to ” p ro n g, as ap p l i e d t o t h e fa c ts of h is c as e, is unconsti tuti onal
. Ap pel l ant’ s Bri efat32
. He ar gues that to w i thsta nd co nsti tuti onalscr uti ny, th e g o v e r n m e n t m us t prov e actu al f acili tation to esta bli sh the “in relation to” elem en t of § 924(c), an d that a m ere p oten tial to facil itate i s insu ffici en t. Spa uld ing’s argum en ts are f or ecl ose d by Sm it h , 50 8 U.S
. at22 3, as wellas U ni t e d S ta tes v. Jackson , 555 F.3d 635 ( 7th Cir. 2009 ). As s t a t e d ab o v e i n r ej e c t i n gS p a u l d i n g ’ s s u f fi c i e n c y o fth e e v i d e n c e c l a i m, th e S u p r e me Cou r t i n Sm i t h d efin ed § 92 4(c )’s “ in rela tio n to ” e lem en t ex p an siv ely , st at in g it is sa tis fied if a fire ar m fac ilita te d , or h ad t h e p ot en tia l of fac ilita tin g, th e d ru g t ra ffick in g off en se . Sm it h , 50 8 U
. S. at23 8. Thi s ex pan si ve r ea di ngo f1 8 U. S
. C. § 9 24 ( c) r emai ns b i ndi ngpr ec ede nt, a nd no th i ngi n H elleres tabl i shed othe rwis e. Spaul ding’ s ar gum ent that the g ove rnm ent di d not sa ti sfy i ts b ur denb y pr o vi nghi s fi r ea r m ha d the po te nt i alo ff ac i l i ta tinghi s dr ugt r affi ck i ng is n ot p er su as ive
. Spaul ding next ar gues that U nited Sta tes v. Sk o ien , 587 F.3d 80 3 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ), vac at e d, r e h’ g g r ant e d on F ebr uary 22 , 20 10, co m pel s r em and to deter m i ne wh ether§ 924( c ) ’ s “ in re l ati on to ” pr o ngc anwi th st an d c o ns ti tu ti o na l s cr ut i ny . In Sk o ien , t h e c ou rtco nsi dered the l eve l o f sc r ut i ny ne ce ss ar y to uphol d l aws tha t r egul at e co nduc t f al l i ngw i th i n the sco pe o fthe S ec o nd A m en d m en t. H er e, Skoi e n i s i napp l i cabl e be cause car ry i ng a gun d uri ng and in rel ati on t o a dr ugt r affi ck i ngc r i m e d oes no t i m pl i ca te a ny pr o te ct ed co nduc t. In Jac ks on , we r ej e c t e d a defen dan t’ s S ec o nd Am en dm en t ch al l en g e to the s ame s ta tu te a ti s s u e h e r e , ho l di ngtha t “[ t] he Consti tuti on does notgi ve anyo ne the r i ght t o be a rm ed w hi l e co m m i tti ng a f el ony. ” 555 F. 3d at 636. The defendant’s choi ce t o engag e in an i l l ega l busi ness i s a n i m port ant f acto r: as Jac ks on p oin te d ou t, C on gr es s c an forb id p eo p le w h o p os se ss gu n s t o d ea l d ru gs j u st as it ca n forb id peopl e who deal drugs to posse ss guns. W e concl ud ed that “ther e i s no co nsti tuti onalpro bl em w i th se parat i ng g uns f ro m drugs. ” Id. Jac ks on ’ s co ncl usi on that § 92 49( c) does noti m pli cate c on d u c t p ro te c te d u n d er th e Se c on d A m en d m en t is d isp os itiv e in th e g ov er n m en t’s fav or .
I I I . C ONC L US I ON Because the go ver nm ent pr ovi ded suffi ci ent e vi dence to pro ve the “ in r elat i on t o” pr o ngo f1 8 U. S
. C. § 9 24 ( c) , a nd b ec au se S pau l di ng do es no t ha ve a S ec o nd Am en dm en t r i g ht to car rya fi re ar m duri ng and i n re l ati on t o hi s drug tr affi cki ng, we AF F I RM the deci si on o f the di str i ct c ourt
.