FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MAY 17, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1274 2 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 00 03 1- CR-F TM-2 9DNF UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us PERRY J OHNSON, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( May 17, 200 5) Be fo re T JO FL A T , A

N D E RS O N a nd H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: A jury co nv ic te d app el la nt , and th e d is tri ctco ur t s en te nc edhi m , on two counts o f ar

m ed bank robbery

(Counts One and T hree), in viol ation of 18 U.S .C. §§ 21 13(a) and 2113(d) ; one coun t (Count Tw o) of using and car ry ing a firear

m2

dur ing a nd i n r el at ionto a cr im e of vio le nc e an d po sse ssi ng a f ir earm in furthe ranc e of

ac ri m e of

vio le nc e, in vio la tio n of

18 U . S. C. § 92 4( c) (1 )( A ); one c o u n t( C o u n tF i v e ) o f

p o s s e s s i n g e x p l o s i v e p i p e b o mb s i n f u rt h e r an c e o f

ac r i me of vio le nc e, in vio la tio n of

18 U . S. C. §§ 9 24( c) (1 )( A ) an d 92 4( c) (1 )C )( ii) ; and o ne count (Count Six) of possessing unregistered explosiv es, in violation of 26 U. S. C. §§ 58 61(d) and 587 1. I n this app eal, appellant contends that the district court shou ld h av e gr an te d hi s F ed . R. Cr im . P . 29( a) m oti on f or j udgm en t of

a cquit ta l on Count Five. T his is so , he say s, beca use no reasonable jury

could have found that he part ic ipa te d inthe de ton at ionof pip e bom

bs b eh ind aP ubl ix s upe rm ar

ke t and ne ar aW al gr ee ns p harm ac y

f or the pur pose of de tr ac tin g th e pol ic e w hil e he ro bbe d an A m So uthBank and tha t su chc ondu ct w as “ in f urthe ranc e of

” tha t bank ro bb ery wit hi n t he m ean in g o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (c)( 1) . Se ct ion924 (c )( 1) (A ) sta te s: E xc ep t t o th e ex te nt tha t a gr eate r m ini m

um se nte nc e is o the rw ise pr ovi de d by

thi s su bse ct ionor

by a ny oth er pr ovi sio n of

law , a ny pe rs on w ho, dur ing a nd i n r el at ionto an y c ri m e of vio le nc e or

dr ug tr af fi ck ing c ri m e (i nc lud ing ac ri m e of vio le nc e or

dr ug tra ff ic kin g cr im e tha t pr ovi de s f

or a n e nhanc ed

pun ish m en t i f co m

m itt ed by the use of ade ad ly or dange ro us w ea

pon or de vic e) f or w hic h th e pe rs on m ay be pr ose cu te d inac ourt of the U nit ed

S ta te s, use s or

c ar ri es a f i r e a rm, o r w h o , i n f u rt h e r a n c e o f

a n y s u c h c r i me , p o s s e s s e s af i r e a rm, sha ll, in ad dit ionto the pun ish m en t pr ovi de d f or suc h c ri m e of violence or drug trafficking crim e–3

(i ) be se nte nc ed

to a te rm of im pr iso nm en t of

not le ss than 5 y ears ; (i i) if the f ir earm is br an dis he d, be se nte nc ed to a te rm of im pr iso nm en t of

not le ss than 7 y ears ; and (i ii) if the f ir earm is dis ch ar ge d, be se nte nc ed to a te rm of im pr iso nm en t of

not le ss than 10 y ears . 18 U. S. C. § 924 (c)( 1)(A ). By definition, the term

“ firearm ” includes a bom b. S ee 18 U . S. C. § 92 1( a) (3 )( D ) an d ( 4) (A )( i) , a nd a bank r obbe ry

is a “ cr im e of vi ol en ce.” Se e e.g ., Uni te d S ta te s v . Hun t, 1 87 F.3d 12 69 , 12 70 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). In Uni te d S ta te s v . Tim

m on s, 2 83 F.3d 12 46 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ), we

“ an al y ze [d ] . . . , f

or the f ir st t im e, the suf

fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce r equir ed

to supp ort a c onvi ct ionf

or pos se ssi on o f a fi re ar

m in ‘ furthe ranc e of

’ adr ug tr af fi ck ing c ri m e. ” I d, a t 12 52. N oti ng tha t “ furthe ranc e” m eans “ a he lpi ng forw ard, ” w e concluded that “ a conviction u nder this po rtion of § 924 (c) requires tha t the pr ose cu tio n e sta

bli sh tha t the f

ir earm he lpe d, f urthe re d, pr om ote d, or advanced the drug trafficking.” Id. (citation om itted). W e explained that Co ngr es s in te nde d th at

the gov er

nm en t be r equir ed

to “ ill ustrate thr oughspe ci fi c fa ct s, w hic h ti e the de fe ndant t o th e fi re ar m , that the f

ir earm w as pos se sse d to advanc e or

pr om ote the c ri m ina l a ct ivi ty . ” I d. E xpl ai nin g f urthe r tha t “ the re m

ust b e ‘as h o wi n g o f s o m e n ex u s b et we en t h e f i re ar m an dt h e d ru g s el l i n g o p er at i o n ,’” we concluded that “ the evidence against Tim m ons (bul let proof vest, cr ack4

cocaine on the stove and un der the cushions of the couch, tw o fully loaded fi re ar m s ontop of

the ove n and am

m uni tio n in sid e the ove n inthe li vin g r oom of his apartm ent) w as sufficient for the j ury to have concluded th at T im m ons was gui lty of pos se ssi ng the f

ir earm s ‘ in f

urthe ranc e of

’ dr ug tra ff ic kin g. ” I d. a t 12 53 (ci ta ti on om it te d) . Inthi s c as e, the G ove rn m en t’ s c as e es ta bli she d ( 1) that the de str

uc tiv e devices we re possessed in order to advance the bank robb ery , and (2) connected ap pe llant t o th e de str

uc tiv e de vic es , suc h th at

ar ea sona

ble j ur y c oul d have co nc lu de d t ha t t he ev id en ce es tabl is he d h is gu il t b ey on d a reas on ab le do ub t. AFFIRMED.