Opinion ID: 573384
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: mac 10

Text: 27 We disagree with the district court that the evidence was sufficient to convict Murphy for using or carrying the MAC 10 during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. There was no evidence that the MAC 10 was ever removed from its locked case in the attic closet. Thus, it could not be argued that the MAC 10 was displayed to purchasers in order to intimidate them. See United States v. Stewart, 779 F.2d 538, 540 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 867 (1987). The MAC 10, located two floors above the utility room, also was not used to protect Murphy's marijuana stash. See United States v. Henry, 878 F.2d 937 (6th Cir.1989). Nor was the MAC 10 used under a drug fortress theory where defendants have ready access to weapons with which they secure or enforce their transactions. Acosta-Cazares, 878 F.2d at 952. The mere availability of a firearm nearby will not suffice where the firearm is not readily accessible. United States v. Theodoropoulos, 866 F.2d 587, 597 (3d Cir.1989). Thus, the court in Theodoropoulos reversed a section 924 conviction based on the presence of four firearms on the defendant's porch. Likewise, in Feliz-Cordero, 859 F.2d 250, the court held that the presence of a firearm in a dresser drawer was insufficient to convict under section 924: 28 [T]here is no basis to conclude that the gun would have been quickly accessible if needed. Rather, under the circumstances of this case, the intent to use the firearm must be presumed from the fact that a loaded gun was found in the same room as drug paraphernalia during the course of a search pursuant to a warrant. This is not sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction, even in light of our recognition of the frequent connection between firearms and narcotics trafficking. 29 Id. at 254. The present case is even weaker, as the MAC 10 was not even located near the drugs. Stored in a locked case in the attic crawl space, the MAC 10 was not accessible to protect the marijuana stored in the first floor freezer nor to intimidate purchasers in the first floor living room. Thus, the government failed to show that possession of the MAC 10 was  'an integral part of the predicate offense and facilitate[d] the commission of that offense.'  United States v. Alvarado, 882 F.2d 645, 653 (2d Cir.1989) (quoting Meggett, 875 F.2d at 29), cert. denied, 100 S.Ct. 1114 (1990). In Theodoropoulos, Feliz-Cordero, and the present case, the government, by establishing nothing more than mere possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, failed to meet its burden. In drafting section 924, Congress required either use or carrying of a firearm. Had it intended the provision to encompass possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense it would have so provided. Theodoropoulos, 866 F.2d at 597-98. The evidence, then, was insufficient to convict on the section 924 charge with respect to the MAC 10 weapon; consequently, Murphy may not, in the event of retrial, be made to run the gauntlet with respect to that charge again.