Opinion ID: 557681
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence: The Firearms Count

Text: 17 The defendant's argument that there was insufficient evidence upon which to convict him for the weapons count is evaluated under the standard articulated above. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c) provides, in relevant part: 18 Whoever, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime which provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) 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 crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, be sentenced to imprisonment for five years, and if the firearm is a machinegun, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, to imprisonment for life imprisonment without release.... 19 Pressley argues that it was not shown that he used or carried the firearms during and in relation to the drug trafficking. 18 U.S.C. 924(c). This court has broadly construed the language of 18 U.S.C. section 924(c). We have concluded that the word carries does not mean actual possession, and uses does not mean brandishment or display. United States v. Acosta-Cazares, 878 F.2d 945 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 255 (1989). Rather, the court has recognized the fortress analogy in construing the section: 20 [I]f it reasonably appears that the firearms found on the premises controlled or owned by a defendant and in his actual or constructive possession are to be used to protect the drugs or otherwise facilitate a drug transaction, then such firearms are used during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. 21 United States v. Henry, 878 F.2d 937 (6th Cir.1989). Thus, the in relation to element of this section is satisfied if from the circumstances or otherwise it could be found that the defendant intended to use the gun if a contingency arose or to make his escape. Id. at 943 n. 5. Further, unloaded or inoperable guns qualify as firearms and fall within the ambit of section 924(c); their unloaded or inoperable status is not determinative on the issue of whether the guns were used. United States v. Munoz-Fabela, 896 F.2d 908 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 76 (1990); United States v. York, 830 F.2d 885 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1074 (1988) (concluding that firearm lacking a firing pin fell within the scope of 924(c)). It is sufficient if a firearm was used to facilitate the crime, including emboldening the actor or intimidating others. United States v. Stewart, 779 F.2d 538 (9th Cir.1985). Given the number and strategic locations of these weapons within defendant's home, which also featured a sophisticated alarm system, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction based upon violation of section 924(c).