Opinion ID: 70766
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: THE Sec. 924(c) ISSUE

Text: 6 King and Rickard argue that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain their convictions under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c). Both defendants timely raised the issue at trial in several motions for judgments of acquittal on Count 3, all of which the district court denied. Since the trial, the Supreme Court has clarified the meaning of uses as that term is employed in Sec. 924(c). See Bailey v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995). 7 Section 924(c)(1) provides for a five-year minimum imprisonment for a person who during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime ... uses or carries a firearm. 18 U.S.C.A. Sec. 924(c)(1) (West 1995). In Bailey, the Supreme Court reversed two convictions under Sec. 924(c), holding that the evidence was insufficient to support either conviction under the use prong. --- U.S. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 509. The Court held that the language, context, and history of Sec. 924(c)(1) indicate that the Government must show active employment of the firearm to establish use. Id. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 506. As applied to the two convictions in Bailey, the Court held that a firearm inside a bag in the locked car trunk and one locked in a footlocker in a bedroom closet did not constitute active employment. Id. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 509. The Court in Bailey did not consider the carry prong of Sec. 924(c). Id. 8 Applying Bailey, we hold that a firearm found between a mattress and box spring in a bedroom next to the room where most of the drug trafficking crime occurred does not constitute the type of active employment of the firearm that is necessary for a conviction under the use prong of Sec. 924(c)(1). That is true even though the drugs being purchased (here, the fake drugs) ended up in the same room with the gun. Whatever the law in this circuit may have been prior to Bailey, it is now clear that the mere conceal[ment] [of] a gun nearby to be at the ready for an imminent confrontation absent the disclos[ure] or mention[ ] by the offender cannot form the basis for a conviction under the use prong of Sec. 924(c)(1). Id. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 508. The government concedes the point in a post-Bailey supplemental authority letter. 9 The government also concedes that the Count 3 convictions cannot be upheld under the carry prong of the statute because, in its words, the trial court did not instruct the jury on the 'carry' prong of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c), and the government did not object to the Sec. 924(c) instruction. In light of that concession, we need not decide whether the evidence would have supported a conviction under the carry prong had that theory been presented to the jury. Accordingly, we reverse King's and Rickard's convictions under Count 3 of the indictment, and vacate the sentences imposed upon them pursuant to that count.