The Hono rable Russell G. Clark, Jr., United States District Judge for th e 1 Western District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-1625

___________ Dennis L. Barrett, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. United States of America, * * [PUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: July 22, 1997 Filed: July 29, 1997

___________ Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, an d MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Dennis L. Barrett appeals from the district c ourt's denial of his motion under 28 1 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm. In 1992, Dennis Barrett pleaded guilty t o a number of offenses, including aiding and abetting the

use and carrying of a firearm in relation to drug offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c) and 2. The district court imposed a 60-month prison sentence-2-

on the weapon charge, consecutive to the prison sentence he rec eived on other charges, and three years supervised release. Barrett did not file a direct appeal. Barrett late r filed this sec tion 2255 motion, arguing that, in light of Bailey v. United States , 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995), his firearm conviction should be vacated.

We note initially that Barrett may have waived and procedurally defaulted this claim by pleading guilt

y and not appealing. See Bousley v. Brooks , 97 F.3d 284, 287 (8th Cir. 1996), petition for cert. filed , ___ U.S.L.W. ___ (U.S. Mar. 18, 1997) (No. 96-8516). The district court reached the merits, however, and we agree with the court tha t the claim is meritless. See Rogers v. United States , 1 F.3d 697, 699 (8th Cir

. 1993) (per curiam).
Th e record shows Michael Gilstrap, Barrett's codefendant, was carrying a firearm in the waistban d of his pants at the time he sold drugs to an undercover agent. Se e Bailey , 116 S. Ct. at 507-09 (preserving "carrying" as alternative basis fo r § 924(c )(1) charge); United States v. White , 81 F.3d 80, 83 (8th Cir. 1996) ("carry "
means to bear firearm on or about one’s person). Barrett admitted at his guilty-ple a hearing tha t he gave Gilstrap the revolver intending for Gilstrap to take it with hi m while distributing cocaine Barrett had given to Gilstrap. See United States v. Simpson , 979 F.2d 1282, 1285 (8th Cir. 1992) (where another person ro bbed bank using firearm, and def endant provided transportation and means of concealment and knew othe r person planned to use gun in comm itting robbery, robber’s gun became defendant’s in eyes of law), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 943 (1993).
We di sagree with Barrett that a defendant may not be found guilty of a section 9 2 4(c)(1) offense as an aider and abettor. We have recognized that a defendant who did not perso nally use or carry a firearm may be found guilty of violating sectio n 924(c) (1) under an aiding-and-abetting theory, see id. at 1285-86, and have recentl y held that Bailey

does not preclude the continued application of a coconspirator theory of liability to section 924(c)(1) offenses, see United States v. Rodger , 100 F.3d 90, 91-3-

n.2 (8th Cir. 19 96) (per curiam), petition for cert. filed , __U.S.L.W.__ (U.S. June 23, 1997) ( No. 96-9502). We conclude the same holds true for aiding-and-abettin g liability. See United States v. Giraldo , 80 F.3d 667, 676-7 7 (2d Cir.), cert. denied , 117 S.Ct. 135 (1996).

Barrett n onetheless insists he was not convicted as an aider and abettor. W e disagree. Although his written judgment does not recite 18 U.S.C. § 2--the aiding-andabetting sta

tute--Barrett acknowledged at his plea hearing that he was pleading guilty to aiding and abetting the section 924(c)(1) offense, as alleged in the indictment, and th e district court accepted his plea and stated that judgment would be entere d
accor dingly. Cf. United States v. Tramp , 30 F.3d 1035, 1037 (8th Cir. 1994) (ora l pronouncement by sentenci ng court is judgment of court); United States v. Glass , 720 F.2d 21, 22 n.2 (8th Cir. 1983) (when oral senten ce and written judgment conflict, oral sentence controls). Finally, we reject Barrett’s argument that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. See Walker v. U nited States , No. 96-2086, 1997 WL 298449 (8th Cir. June 6, 1997). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.