Opinion ID: 184817
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: In an argument closely related to the carry jury instruction claim, Joseph contends that the evidence was insufficientfor a s 924(c)(1) conviction on either a use or carrycharge. On direct appeal, we said that [o]n an indictmentcharged in the conjunctive, when there is evidence sufficientto support conviction on one of the acts charged, the convic- tion will not be disturbed for lack of sufficiency of theevidence. Joseph, 892 F.2d at 125.8 We reviewed theevidence, concluded that it was sufficient under the Evansdefinition of carry,9 and said that whether it was sufficientunder the use prong was therefore irrelevant. See id. at125-26. That decision dooms Joseph's claim of insufficiencyhere. Had our understanding of carry at the time of theappeal proved too expansive under Muscarello, as Josephargues, we would have had to revisit the sufficiency questionand give careful scrutiny to Joseph's claim. But we aresatisfied the Evans definition remains good law. Thus, sinceBailey addressed the use prong only, and Muscarello doesnot invalidate our view of carry, the conclusion reached inJoseph's direct appeal in 1989 that there was sufficient evidence of carrying remains sound.