Opinion ID: 678782
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inconsistent Results

Text: 31 The open-ended approach described in Derr has produced widely divergent and seemingly contradictory results. Panels have upheld convictions where a loaded, sawed-off shotgun was found along with crack cocaine and drug paraphernalia in a lawn clipping bag beneath the exterior stairwell of a house and additional drugs and paraphernalia were found in the defendant's bedroom, see United States v. Jefferson, 974 F.2d 201 (D.C.Cir.1992); where loaded pistols were found underneath a sofa cushion and on a bedroom nightstand in the defendant's house, which elsewhere contained crack cocaine in ziplock bags and other drug paraphernalia, see United States v. Morris, 977 F.2d 617 (D.C.Cir.1992); and where a loaded 9-mm. pistol was found along with cash in the trunk of the defendant's car after bags of cocaine had been found in the front seat of the car, see United States v. Bailey, 995 F.2d 1113 (D.C.Cir.1993). In contrast, panels have reversed convictions where a loaded .22 caliber Derringer was found, along with individual packages of cocaine and marijuana, in a pocket of the defendant's trench coat in the house in which he lived, see United States v. Bruce, 939 F.2d 1053 (D.C.Cir.1991); where an unloaded .357 Magnum revolver was found along with the defendant's birth certificate and a locked box containing cash, crack cocaine, and drug paraphernalia in an apartment in which the defendant was staying, see United States v. Derr, 990 F.2d 1330 (D.C.Cir.1993); and where an unloaded .22 caliber Derringer was found in a closet along with crack cocaine and drug proceeds, including marked money, see United States v. Robinson, 997 F.2d 884 (D.C.Cir.1993). Although each of these cases can be distinguished on the basis of one or another fact--for example, by looking to the type of gun involved or to how easily the defendant could have grabbed the gun at the time that he was arrested--such distinctions seem counter-intuitive if not arbitrary. Having reflected upon our experience, we think it apparent that the court has failed to take a consistent approach because it has not laid down a standard that yields determinate results in any but the easiest of cases.3. Conflict with Other Circuits 32 No other circuit has found our open-ended approach persuasive. Our sister circuits have each adopted a definition of use that is considerably broader than firing, displaying, or otherwise brandishing the firearm. They focus upon whether the evidence concerning the location of the gun is sufficient to permit the jury to conclude that the gun in some way facilitated the predicate drug trafficking offense. From a functional perspective, the standards they have developed for assessing the sufficiency of the evidence are much more similar to the proximity and accessibility standard we adopt today than to the open-ended approach that we have used in the past. 33 The opinion in United States v. Molinar-Apodaca, 889 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir.1989) is representative. In that case, police officers executing a search warrant had found a commercial quantity of marijuana in a shed outside the defendant's house; in the house itself, they found an automatic rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Id. at 1422. In analyzing the defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of this evidence, the Fifth Circuit did not look at such details as whether the guns were loaded or whether they were the appropriate type of weapon to protect an ongoing drug operation. Rather, applying circuit law to the effect that the government is only obliged to show that the firearm was available to provide protection to the defendant in connection with his engagement in drug trafficking, the court affirmed the conviction. 34 In the wake of Justice Kennedy's analysis in Stewart, the Ninth Circuit applies an equally straightforward test. That court will affirm a conviction under Sec. 924(c)(1) if [the firearm's] physical proximity to the defendant at any time during the commission of the crime, or during arrest, supports the inference that it emboldened him to commit the underlying offense or to resist arrest. United States v. Torres-Medina, 935 F.2d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir.1991). 35 Every other circuit similarly focuses, in essence, upon whether the firearm was accessible and proximate to the defendant during the commission of the drug offense. In numerical order by circuit, see, e.g., United States v. Paulino, 13 F.3d 20, 26 (1st Cir.1994) ([T]he court's critical concern should ... be whether ... [the firearm] was 'available for use' in connection with the narcotics trade); United States v. Medina, 944 F.2d 60, 66 (2d Cir.1991) (holding that a conviction may be affirmed where circumstances indicate that the defendant intended to use the weapon by strategically placing it so that it could be available for use during a drug transaction); United States v. Hill, 967 F.2d 902, 906-07 (3d Cir.1992) (holding that where the proximity of the gun to the drugs indicated that the defendant's access to the weapon was unimpeded by distance or other objects, the jury could conclude that the weapon facilitated [the defendant's] possession of and intention to distribute illegal drugs); United States v. Paz, 927 F.2d 176, 179 (4th Cir.1991) (affirming a conviction because, during the course of defendant's possessory offenses, the gun was present and accessible, even though under a mattress); United States v. Thomas, 12 F.3d 1350, 1362 (5th Cir.1994) (The presence of firearms at the home of a defendant where drugs, money, and ammunition are also found ... is sufficient to establish the 'use' of a firearm as an integral part of a drug-trafficking crime in violation of Sec. 924(c)(1)); United States v. Warner, 10 F.3d 1236, 1239 (6th Cir.1993) (affirming a conviction solely because the firearm was readily accessible for drug-related protection); United States v. Vasquez, 909 F.2d 235, 240 (7th Cir.1990) (holding that a conviction under Sec. 924(c)(1) is appropriate when guns and drugs are present in the same location, because the trier of fact [can] reasonably conclude that the availability of firearms instills [in the defendant] a heightened sense of security [while] he posses[es] the drugs with the intent to distribute them); United States v. Quintanilla, 25 F.3d 694, 700 (8th Cir.1994) (To support a conviction under section 924(c)(1), the government need only establish that a firearm was present and available for use); United States v. Torres-Medina, 935 F.2d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir.1991) (We hold that a firearm may be considered available [and therefore used by a defendant] for purposes of section 924(c)(1) if its physical proximity to the defendant at any time during the commission of the crime, or during arrest, supports the inference that it emboldened him to commit the underlying offense or to resist arrest); United States v. McKinnell, 888 F.2d 669, 675 (10th Cir.1989) (holding that the uses element of section 924(c)(1) is satisfied when the defendant has ready access to the firearm and the firearm was an integral part of his criminal undertaking and its availability increased the likelihood that the criminal undertaking would succeed (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Poole, 878 F.2d 1389, 1393 (11th Cir.1989) ([P]ossession of a firearm constitutes use in relation to the drug trafficking offense if the possession is an integral part of, and facilitates the commission of, the drug trafficking offense); see also Note, Smith v. United States and the Modern Interpretation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1): A Proposal to Amend the Federal Armed Offender Statute, 69 NOTRE DAME L.REV. 815, 843 & nn. 187-190 (1994) (noting that other circuits have specifically rejected many of the factors considered by the D.C.Circuit: size of the gun ... whether the firearm was loaded, number of weapons, and evidence of past actual use). But cf. United States v. Taylor, 18 F.3d 55, 58 (2d Cir.1994) (noting that the analysis of a sufficiency challenge is clearly a very fact-intensive question [that] requir[es] a careful examination of, among other things, where the gun was located and what else was found in the apartment).