Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50994 Su m m ar yC al endar

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee

v. SAU L RA M I RE Z , D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 5 : 0 6

- CR- 5 3 9

- ALL

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d D AV IS an d W IE N E R , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * S au lR am i rez appea l s f rom hi s j u d g m e n t of convi ct i on f

or one coun tof pos se ss i on w i t h i nt entt o di st r ibut e c oc ai ne i n vi ol at i on o f 21 U
. S. C

. § 841( a) ( 1) ando ne c o unto f

c ar r yi ng a f

i r e ar m dur i ng andi n re l at i o n t o a dr ug t r af f i c ki ng c r i m e i n vi ol at i on o f

18 U
. S. C

. § 924(c ) ( 1) (A)

. H e a r gues t hatt he e vi denc e w as i n suff i ci en tt o sup port a f

i n di n g of

gu i l ton the f

i rearm charge. Th e par t i es c or r ec t l y agr ee t hatR a m i r ez pr es erved t hi s c l ai m t hro ugh R u le 2 9 m o tio n s . See Un itedS t ate s v. F erguson , 211 F
. 3d 878 , 882 ( 5th C i r. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

4, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50994

2 20 00 )

. Ac c o r di ngly, w e “m us tde t e r m i ne w he t he r , v i e w i ng t he e vi de nc e i n t he l i gh tm ostfavorab l e t o t h e v e rdi ctan d d raw i n g al lreasonab l e i n ferences f rom t he e vi denc e i n s upp o r to f t he v e r di c t , a r at i o nalt r i e ro f fac tc o ul d ha ve f

o und t ha t t h e e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e d t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s o f t h e o f fe n s e be yo nd a
rea son a b l e d ou b t. ” I d. In rel evan tpart, § 924(c ) ( 1) (A) i m poses a 5- year m i n i m u m t erm of i m pr i s o nm e ntupo n a p erso n who “ dur i ng andi n r e l at i o n t o a ny . . . dr ug t raf f i cki n g cri m e . . . u ses or carri es a f i rearm . ” B ecau se t h e i n di ct m en tan d j u ry in s t r u c t io n s t r a c k e d t h is “ u s e s o r c a r r ie s ” p o r t io n o f § 9 2 4 (c )( 1 )(A), R a m ir e z ’s
a rg u m en ts reg a rd i n g w h eth er he “po sse sse d ” t h e fi rea rm “i n f u rth era n ce of” a d r u gtr a ffic k in go f

fe n s e a r e m is p la c e d
. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. McG i l berry , 480 F
. 3d 326 , 328 ( 5th C i r. 200 7) ( di st i n gu i shi n g t h e evi den ce r equ i red t o convi ct unde rt he “ us e s o rc ar r i e s ” pr o ng o f § 9 24 (c ) ( 1) (A) f

r o m t hatr e qui r e d un de rt he “p o ss e ss e s” p ro n g). R am i rez’ s argum en tt h at t h e G overnm en t fai l ed t o prove t h at he carr i ed t he f i r e ar m “ dur i ng andi n r e l at i o n t o ” t he dr ug o f fe ns e i s unav ai l i ng. “ [ I ] n t he contextof

an au t om obi l e const ructive possessi on w i l lsup port a convic t i on un der t he ‘ c ar r yi ng’pr o ng o f § 9 24 (c ) ( 1) w he n af

i r e ar m i s t r ans po r t e d i n av e hi c l e a nd t he ope r at o rof

t he v e hi c l e kno w i ngly po s s e s s e s t he f i r e ar m i n t he v e hi c l e dur i ng a n d i n relati on to a d ru g tra ff i ck i n g crim e.” Un itedS ta tes v. S m ith , 481 F. 3d 25 9, 2 63 ( 5t h Ci r . 20 07 ) (i nt e r nal quo t at i o n m ar ks and c i t at i o n o m i t t e d)

. A gu n do e s no tha ve t o b e w i t hi n e as y r e ac h o f t he de fe nda nti n o r der t o s us t ai n a c a r r y in gch a r g e in th e v e h ic u la rco n te x t. I d. at264. R am i rez cl ai m ed ow n ershi p of the dru gs a n d f

i rearm , both of

w h i ch w ere f ou n d on t h e passen ger’ s s i de f l oorb o a rd o f t h e car h e w as drivi n g. R am i rez a d m i tted to a fed era lag en t t h a t he h a d“j u st recen tl y p u rch a sed ” th e d ru gs . In ad di t i o n, t he g un ha d b e e n t e s tf i r e d a nd w as foun d t o f unc t i o n a s de s i gne d.N o. 08- 50994

3 Al t ho ugh t he r e w as no di r e c te vi de nc e t hatRam i r e z us e d t he g un f o rpr o t e c t i o n, i t “ ob viou sly cou l d h a ve be en u sed f or p rot e c tio n if

[h e] f elti t ne cess a ry , ” i d. , and , i n any c as e , t he G o ve r nm e nto nl y ne e de d t o s ho w t hatRam i r e z c ar r i e d t he gu n d u rin gan d i n rel ati on t o hi s posses si on w i t h i n t en tt o di st ribu t e coc ai n e. S e eid

. at263- 64. F i n a l l y, R a m i rez i n ti m a tes th a t his po sse ss io n w i th i n ten t t o d i strib u te cocai n e di d n otconst i t u t e a “ dru g t raf f i cki n g cri m e” f

or purp oses of § 9 2 4 (c )(1 )(A), b u t w e h a v e h e ldo th e r w is e . Un itedS ta tes v. Mu n o z-Fa b ela , 896 F .2d 9 0 8 , 9 1 1 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 0 ). AF F I RMED.