Opinion ID: 718811
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: staples carried the firearm.

Text: 16 After the parties filed their briefs, the Supreme Court issued Bailey v. United States, in which the Court reversed two convictions under § 924(c)(1). --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995). In Bailey, the Court defined use as active employment of the firearm. Id. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 506. The firearms in Bailey were found in a locked car trunk and in a locked footlocker in a bedroom closet. Id. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 509. The Court held that the defendants had not used the firearms, since no evidence indicated that either defendant actively employed the firearms. Because the defendants were charged under both the use and carry prongs of § 924(c)(1), and the court of appeals did not consider liability under the carry prong, the Court remanded for consideration of whether the defendants carried the firearms. Id. 17 Staples did not use the firearm under Bailey. No evidence indicates that he actively employed the firearm; it remained in the glove compartment during the entire transaction. 18 At issue is whether Staples carried the firearm by transporting it in the glove compartment of a car to the scene of a drug transaction. Staples' indictment charged that he did use and carry a firearm. (emphasis added). In his plea agreement, Staples admitted that I knowingly carried this firearm in the glove compartment of the car at the time I distributed the cocaine to John Matthews.... I admit that I carried the firearm during and in relation to the distribution of that cocaine. Plea Agreement at 2. 19 Bailey provides some guidance in interpreting carry. The Court noted that [t]he 'carry' prong of § 924(c)(1), for example, brings some offenders who would not satisfy the 'use' prong within the reach of the statute. --- U.S. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 509. 20 Under the interpretation we enunciate today, a firearm can be used without being carried, e.g., when an offender has a gun on display during a transaction, or barters with a firearm without handling it; and a firearm can be carried without being used, e.g., when an offender keeps a gun hidden in his clothing throughout a drug transaction. 21 Id. at ----, 116 S.Ct. at 507. 22 Subsequent to Bailey, this court held that in order for a defendant to be convicted of 'carrying' a gun in violation of section 924(c)(1), the defendant must have transported the firearm on or about his or her person. This means the firearm must have been immediately available for use by the defendant. United States v. Hernandez, 80 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir.1996) (citations omitted). Since the gun in Hernandez was located in a locked toolbox, this court held that the defendant did not use or carry the firearm. Id. 23 In Hernandez, this court relied on the Sixth Circuit's interpretation of carry in United States v. Riascos-Suarez, 73 F.3d 616 (6th Cir.1996). The Sixth Circuit held that the firearm must be immediately available for use-on the defendant or within his or her reach. Id. at 623. The court held that the defendant carried a firearm when he drove with a loaded gun on the driver's side of the console. Id. 24 Other cases agree that a defendant can carry a firearm in an automobile. In United States v. Barber, this court interpreted § 924(c)(2), the predecessor to the current § 924(c)(1), and held that a defendant had carried a firearm in the glove compartment of his car. 594 F.2d 1242, 1244 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 835, 100 S.Ct. 69, 62 L.Ed.2d 46 (1979). Likewise, the Eleventh Circuit recently held that a defendant carried a firearm which was located in a glove compartment. United States v. Farris, 77 F.3d 391, 395-96 (11th Cir.1996) (From this the jury could find that the Toyota was used as a drug distribution center and that Farris knew the firearm was in the automobile. Put differently, the jury could find that the firearm was being carried by Farris in the vehicle.). 25 Staples carried the firearm under Hernandez. The firearm was in the glove compartment, and thus about his person, within reach and immediately available for use. Moreover, in his plea agreement Staples admitted that he carried the firearm in connection with his drug trafficking activities. Under these facts, Staples carried the firearm. 26 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.