Opinion ID: 77174
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Carrying a Firearm in Relation to a Drug-Trafficking Crime

Text: 27 Diaz-Boyzo raises three arguments against his conviction for carrying a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking crime. First, he contends that this conviction is predicated on his conviction for distribution of methamphetamine and therefore suffers from the same evidentiary deficiencies which attend the distribution conviction. Having previously concluded that there was sufficient evidence for his distribution conviction, we conclude that this argument fails. 28 As to his second argument, he argues that the evidence fails to establish that he carried the firearm within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). We have held that [a] central and obvious concept inherent in the physical meaning of the word carry is that of some degree of physical transportation or movement. United States v. Mount, 161 F.3d 675, 679 (11th Cir.1998). In United States v. Young, the defendant had three guns in his car while he transported drugs for a possible sale. 131 F.3d 1437, 1438 (11th Cir.1997) (per curiam). In that case, no sale was in progress or even imminent when the defendant was arrested and the guns found. Id. We held that the factfinder in that case could reasonably link the vehicle and the guns to drug trafficking activity in order to satisfy the `carrying' prong of the statute even though there is no direct evidence of a sale in progress or one that is imminent. Id. at 1439. Here, Diaz-Boyzo's arrival at the Waffle House as a passenger in the targeted truck and his possession of a gun just moments after the five-pound delivery of methamphetamine are sufficiently linked to each other to establish the carrying prong of § 924(c). 29 As to his third argument, Diaz-Boyzo argues that the evidence fails to establish the in relation to prong of § 924(c). The Supreme Court has stated that [t]he phrase `in relation to' . . . at a minimum, clarifies that the firearm must have some purpose or effect with respect to the drug trafficking crime; its presence or involvement cannot be the result of accident or coincidence. Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 238, 113 S.Ct. 2050, 2058-59, 124 L.Ed.2d 138 (1993). Given that we have previously concluded that the evidence is this case was sufficient to show that Diaz-Boyzo aided and abetted a drug transaction and that he carried the gun to the transaction within the meaning of § 924(c), we have no difficulty in concluding that there was sufficient evidence to show that the gun was there for use if needed during the drug transaction and that the in relation prong of § 924(c) is therefore satisfied.