Opinion ID: 713088
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bailey's Effect On Garcia's Conviction

Text: 14 Garcia was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) of using a machinegun in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The applicable provision of the statute reads: 15 Whoever, during and in relation to any ... drug trafficking crime ... for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such ... drug trafficking crime, be sentenced to imprisonment for five years, ... and if the firearm is a machinegun, ... to imprisonment for thirty years. 16 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). When Garcia was arrested, the officers found a machinegun in an upstairs bedroom. The underlying drug trafficking crime supporting Garcia's conviction was possession with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine. Based upon a police officer's expert testimony, the jury determined that Garcia used the machinegun to protect the stash of drugs and found Garcia guilty. 17 Prior to Bailey, Garcia's conviction was proper under the authority of this circuit. We had consistently held that possession of a gun is enough to support a conviction under section 924(c)(1) if the jury could reasonably infer that the possessed gun could have played a role in the crime. United States v. Torres-Rodriguez, 930 F.2d 1375, 1385 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Moore, 580 F.2d 360, 362 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 970, 99 S.Ct. 463, 58 L.Ed.2d 430 (1978). Therefore, prior to Bailey, the jury could have properly inferred that Garcia used the machinegun during and in relation to the drug offense by simply possessing the machinegun in the same household with the drugs. 18 In Bailey, the defendant was arrested when the police pulled him over for a routine traffic violation. Bailey had no driver's license and a search of his car revealed 27 plastic bags of cocaine. After his arrest, the police searched the trunk of the car and found a loaded 9-mm. pistol. Bailey was charged and convicted of using a gun for drug trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). In United States v. Robinson, consolidated with Bailey before the D.C. Court of Appeals in an en banc hearing, the defendant made several sales of drugs to a confidential informant. When the apartment was searched, a gun was found and the defendant was charged under section 924(c)(1). Both Robinson and Bailey were convicted under the statute and their sentences were affirmed by the D.C. Court of Appeals. See United States v. Bailey, 36 F.3d 106 (D.C.Cir.1994) (en banc), rev'd, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995). 19 The Supreme Court reversed both Robinson and Bailey's convictions and held that section 924(c)(1) requires active use or carrying of the firearm in commission of the drug trafficking crime. Bailey, --- U.S. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 506. It is not enough that a defendant store a gun near drugs. A conviction under the use clause of section 924(c)(1) requires that the Government show active employment of the firearm. Id. 20 The undisputed facts of this case will not support Garcia's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) under the active employment test announced in Bailey. The officers never observed Garcia holding or using the gun. The machinegun was found upstairs in the apartment, albeit in plain view. A defendant cannot be charged under § 924(c)(1) merely for storing a weapon near drugs or drug proceeds. Storage of a firearm, without its more active employment, is not reasonably distinguishable from possession. Id. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 508. Even if the Government were to argue that Garcia was keeping the gun at the ready for protection in connection with the drug offense, the conviction cannot stand. As the Supreme Court concluded: 21 Some might argue that the offender has actively employed the gun by hiding it where he can grab and use it if necessary. In our view, use cannot extend to encompass this action. If the gun is not disclosed or mentioned by the offender, it is not actively employed, and it is not used. To conclude otherwise would distort the language of the statute as well as create an impossible line-drawing problem. 22 Id. at ---- - ----, 116 S.Ct. at 508-09. Under the authority of Bailey, the conviction of violating section 924(c)(1) is reversed.