Opinion ID: 198228
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Section 924(c)(1) Instruction

Text: 33 Taylor also argues that the court's instructions to the jury with respect to the elements necessary to convict him for carrying or use of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) 6 were erroneous. Taylor contends that the court's instructions were flawed because they authorized the jury to convict him based solely upon a finding that he used a firearm, and that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to find that Taylor used a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. As Taylor did not object to the challenged instruction at trial, we review the court's instruction for plain error. See United States v. Booth, 111 F.3d 1, 2 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 204, 139 L.Ed.2d 140 (1997). This standard requires not only that the error be plain ... but also that affirmance would result in a 'miscarriage of justice,' one that would jeopardize public confidence in the integrity of the judicial process. United States v. Ramirez-Ferrer, 82 F.3d 1149, 1152 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 405, 136 L.Ed.2d 319 (1996). 7 The Supreme Court has said that plain error requires that the error must have been prejudicial: It must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). 34 The court's instructions indicated that two possible bases for conviction were presented to the jury. The first was use of a firearm, which, as the court accurately instructed, required active employment of the firearm. The second was carrying of a firearm, which the jury was only told required more than mere momentar[ ]y possession of the firearm. 35 It is questionable whether the evidence here supported a use finding, since the defendant was not shown to have actively deployed a firearm. See Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 144, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995). The evidence, however, fully supported a carrying finding. See Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, ----, 118 S.Ct. 1911, 1914, 141 L.Ed.2d 111 (1998) (phrase carries a firearm applies to person who knowingly possesses and conveys firearms in a vehicle). The undisputed evidence established that officers found a loaded .45 caliber weapon and 225 grams of cocaine just above Taylor's head in the Acura he was driving when Officer Komosa stopped the car. That evidence provided ample basis from which the jury could reasonably conclude that Taylor carried a firearm in relation to a drugtrafficking crime. See id. at ----, 118 S.Ct. at 1919 (holding that person who carries drugs and weapons in trunk of vehicle or carries a firearm in locked glove compartment of vehicle while transporting drugs carries a firearm within meaning of section 924(c)(1)). 36 To be sure, the carrying instruction was less than illuminating. But it is unclear how the reference to possession harmed the defendant, and we cannot see that the absence, otherwise, of a definition of carrying constituted plain error resulting in a miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (plain errors  'seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings' ) (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160, 56 S.Ct. 391, 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936)). At worst, the jury was left to wrestle with the meaning of carrying in a situation where all the evidence indicated that a firearm was being carried in relation to a drug crime. On the facts, it was most unlikely that any deficiency in the instructions affected the outcome of the district court proceedings. Olano, 507 U.S. at 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770. 37 Affirmed.