Opinion ID: 752440
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: 1 James Roger Gobert pleaded guilty to a one-count Bill of Information charging him with using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). 1 The district court imposed a 36-month term of imprisonment, to be followed by a three-year period of supervised release. Subsequent to Gobert's conviction, the Supreme Court decided Bailey v. United States. 2 In Bailey, the Court held that the Government, to sustain a conviction under the use prong of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), must prove that the defendant actively employed a firearm during the predicate drug offense. 3 Gobert filed a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on the ground that his pre-Bailey conviction could no longer stand in light of the Supreme Court's interpretation of § 924(c)(1). 4 His argument, construed liberally, 5 is that he was wrongfully convicted under the use prong of § 924(c)(1) because the district court failed to develop an adequate factual basis to support his guilty plea. The district court denied Gobert's motion and denied his request for a certificate of appealability (COA). Gobert now petitions this Court to issue a COA and vacate his sentence. For the reasons that follow, we grant a COA, vacate Gobert's conviction, and remand this case to the district court for the entry of a new plea.