Opinion ID: 734913
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Multiple Section 924 convictions based on the same underlying predicate offense

Text: 23 In U.S. v. Smith, 924 F.2d at 894, the we found that a conviction on an underlying predicate offense can only support one conviction under Section 924. We found that, each 924(c)(1) count must be supported by a separate predicate offense. Id.; see also U.S. v. Henning, 906 F.2d 1392, 1399 (10th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1069 (1991); U.S. v. Henry, 878 F.2d 937 (6th Cir.1989); U.S. v. Privette, 947 F.2d 1259, 1262-63 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 912 (1992). In this case, all of the Section 924 convictions rested on the same underlying predicate offense, the Count 1 conspiracy. Appellant was sentenced, however, with respect to only one of the Section 924 convictions. Our holding in U.S. v. Martinez, 7 F.3d 146 (9th Cir.1993), indicates that the district court proceeded properly. The Martinez court specifically suggested two ways to handle the Smith directive: 24 the district court should either (1) submit separate counts under section 924(c)(1) to the jury, and, if there is more than one conviction, merge those convictions after the trial, or (2) submit one section 924(c)(1) charge to the jury with special interrogatories requiring the jury to specify which weapon or weapons the defendant used or carried. 25 Martinez, 7 F.3d at 148 n. 1; see also U.S. v. Wills, 88 F.3d 704, 719-20 (9th Cir.1996) (upholding more than one Section 924 conviction based on the same underlying offense, but directing that defendant should be sentenced as to only one); U.S. v. Melvin, 27 F.3d 710, 716 (1st Cir.1994) (following Martinez ). The district court properly followed the Martinez rule in this case, and LaFromboise's convictions are not improper on that ground. 26