Opinion ID: 540010
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reginald Velez.

Text: 34 Velez was also convicted of using a firearm in relation to a narcotics trafficking offense in violation of section 924(c)(1). The evidence to support this charge consisted of a slip itemizing receipts and expenses given by Velez to Flores on or about June 17, 1987, one of many submitted by Velez to Flores over the four-month period covered by the seized ledgers, and a corresponding ledger entry by Flores. The slip showed a $150 expenditure for a shotgun with the added notations: Bought a shotgun for our protection, and we had to buy a gun because there [are] a lot of things happ[en]ing so we want to feel safe. Flores entered the deduction in his ledger as follows: Shotgun--150. However, the shotgun was not seized or presented as evidence. 35 On appeal, Velez claims that this evidence was insufficient to support his conviction (1) where no shotgun was recovered or seen by any witness, (2) because the conviction was based on his uncorroborated admission, and (3) because there was no evidence that he used the weapon for the stated purpose. We agree with Velez' third contention, that the slip and ledger entry fail to establish that the shotgun was used during and in relation to any ... drug trafficking crime within the meaning of section 924(c)(1), and accordingly reverse his conviction on the firearm count without considering his other grounds for reversal. 36 We stated in Meggett that statutory use requires possession of a gun under circumstances where the weapon is so placed as to be an integral part of the offense, 875 F.2d at 29 (construing Feliz-Cordero ), noting that the reversal of the firearm conviction in Feliz-Cordero resulted from the absence of proof that the defendants ... had placed the weapon to have it available for ready use during the transaction, id., even though the weapon in Feliz-Cordero was found together with drug paraphernalia in a defendant's apartment. Here, by contrast, assuming that Velez did purchase the shotgun as reflected by the slip and ledger entry, and assuming further that he intended to use it as stated--for our protection, it nonetheless remained to be proved that it was actually so used. There was no evidence as to where the shotgun was placed, and no evidence that the shotgun was ever in fact utilized to protect the narcotics operation or its proceeds. Under these circumstances, both the statutory language and our precedents require the reversal of Velez' conviction under section 924(c)(1). 37