Opinion ID: 779583
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Fourth Assignment of Error

Text: 30 Lawrence next challenges his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support such a conviction. We review claims of insufficient evidence to determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). 31 In pertinent part 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) provides: 32 any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime ... uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime — 33 (i) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 5 years. 1 34 Lawrence concedes ownership of all the firearms, including the machine gun, identified in counts four and five of the superseding indictment, but argues that there was insufficient evidence that his possession was in furtherance of a drug crime. 35 This Court recently answered the question of what the in furtherance of language of § 924(c) means in United States v. Mackey, 265 F.3d 457 (6th Cir.2001). In Mackey, we determined that the term `furtherance' should be understood in its ordinary or natural meaning, which is a helping forward: advancement, promotion. Id. at 460-61. Or put more plainly, the weapon must promote or facilitate the crime. Id. at 461. Other courts have similarly interpreted the in furtherance of language found in § 924(c). See United States v. Timmons, 283 F.3d 1246, 1252 (11th Cir.2002) (the prosecution must establish that the firearm helped, furthered, promoted, or advanced the drug trafficking); United States v. Iiland, 254 F.3d 1264, 1274 (10th Cir.2001) (specific evidence must establish that guns were possessed in furtherance of the drug trafficking charge); United States v. Ceballos-Torres, 218 F.3d 409, 415 (5th Cir. 2000) ([F]irearm possession that furthers, advances, or helps forward the drug trafficking offense violates the statute.). 36 These interpretations of the language in § 924(c) are consistent with the legislative history of the 1998 amendment to § 924(c), which responded to the Supreme Court's decision in Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995). See H.R.Rep. No. 105-344, at 4 (1997). Bailey involved the prior version of the statute, which criminalized using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to drug trafficking. In Bailey, the Court confronted the question of what use meant in the context of this earlier version of § 924(c). After analyzing several definitions and uses of the word, the Court concluded that Congress had intended to criminalize only the active employment of a firearm, not mere possession. Bailey, 516 U.S. at 149, 116 S.Ct. 501. 37 The 1998 amendment to § 924(c) inserted the broader term possession. Congress, however, limited the meaning of the term possession by including the phrase in furtherance of. Thus, Congress chose to make § 924(c) more stringent than mere possession, but less stringent than active employment. 38 By way of guidance, the Judiciary Committee Report describes when a gun is possessed in furtherance of an underlying offense: 39 The government must clearly show that a firearm was possessed to advance or promote the commission of the underlying offense. The mere presence of a firearm in an area where a criminal act occurs is not a sufficient basis for imposing this particular mandatory sentence. Rather, the government must illustrate through specific facts, which tie the defendant to the firearm, that the firearm was possessed to advance or promote the criminal activity. 40 H.R.REP. No. 105-344, at 12 (footnotes omitted). 41 In light of Congress' intent not to penalize for the mere presence of a firearm, and our understanding of the plain meaning of the language of § 924(c), as amended, we review the circumstances leading to Lawrence's conviction. 42 Though Lawrence did not argue in his initial brief that the other three firearms listed in count five of the superseding indictment — a Ruger 9mm semi-automatic, an Interarms .357 revolver, and a Norinco Mac-90 rifle — were not possessed in furtherance of the underlying drug offense, he did assert that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction in regards to those weapons in his reply brief. Mr. Lawrence's arguments regarding these weapons are, however, not well-taken. The jury's verdict regarding these weapons is supported by the close proximity of the weapons to the drugs and the fact that these weapons were found either loaded or with ammunition. It was quite reasonable for the jury to conclude that the weapons were placed strategically so that Lawrence could defend his drugs and money, thus satisfying the in furtherance of requirement of § 924(c). See Mackey, 265 F.3d at 462 (In order for the possession to be in furtherance of a drug crime, the firearm must be strategically located so that it is quickly and easily available for use.). 43 The same cannot be said as to Lawrence's possession of the machine gun and silencer. Here, all that was shown was that Lawrence possessed the firearm. Though the machine gun was obtained along with a shipment of cocaine from Lawrence's drug supplier, he had not purchased or otherwise acted affirmatively to acquire the weapon. Instead, the record establishes it was an unsolicited gift. When the machine gun was found, it was unloaded, placed in a cupboard, and wrapped in the same newspaper in which it was covered at the time of its delivery. There was no ammunition either at hand or on the premises. The government offered no evidence that Lawrence had ever displayed the weapon, mentioned his possession of it to anyone, or had ever fired it. From the information presented to the jury, it is at least as likely, if not more so, that Lawrence kept the machine gun as a trophy or quasi-souvenir, rather than to help him with his illegal narcotics trafficking. 44 Though the gun came into Lawrence's possession with a shipment of drugs, there is no indication that he possessed the gun to advance his illegalities. Because all evidence suggests that Lawrence obtained the machine gun as an unsolicited gift, it cannot be said that Lawrence's possession of the machine gun at the time of its delivery was designed to promote his drug trafficking. There is no indication that Lawrence knew even of the possibility of its existence until the weapon was in his hands. This is not to say that Mr. Lawrence's possession of the machine gun could not have satisfied the in furtherance of requirement of § 924(c) had Lawrence merely stated that the weapon would be used to advance his drug dealing or had he placed the weapon strategically to scare off would-be threats to his enterprise. But he did not do so. Instead, Lawrence merely stored the weapon. Nothing indicates that he intended to use the machine gun in future dealings. Without more evidence that Lawrence possessed the machine gun so that his drug trafficking might be furthered, we reverse his conviction as to count four of the indictment. Lawrence's sentence as to count five is vacated and the case is remanded for re-sentencing consistent with this opinion.