Opinion ID: 658270
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plain View Doctrine

Text: 19 Because we conclude that the drugs and guns were validly seized incident to Pratt's lawful arrest, there is no need for us to engage in an in-depth consideration of Pratt's contention that the plain view doctrine does not justify the seizure of evidence from his home. We note, in any event, that the government does not appear to contest the district court's finding that the evidence under the chair was not in plain view. We also note that Pratt conceded at the suppression hearing that the powder cocaine on top of the television was in plain view. Thus, Pratt's challenge to the seizure of the latter piece of evidence must fail. See United States v. Winslow, 962 F.2d 845, 849 (1992) (new issues generally cannot be raised on appeal). 20 2. Sufficiency of the Evidence to Sustain Pratt's Conviction Under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c) 21 The district court denied Pratt's motion for judgment of acquittal and his motion for a new trial, in the alternative. On appeal, Pratt contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of use of a firearm in relation to drug trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c). There is sufficient evidence to support a conviction if,  'reviewing 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.'  United States v. Bishop, 959 F.2d 820, 829 (9th Cir.1992) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)) (emphasis added). [C]ircumstantial evidence and inferences drawn from it may be sufficient to sustain a conviction. United States v. Reyes-Alvarado, 963 F.2d 1184, 1187 (9th Cir.) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 258 (1992). However, mere suspicion or speculation is insufficient. United States v. Stauffer, 922 F.2d 508, 514 (9th Cir.1990). 22 To convict a defendant for violating 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c), the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt [that] the defendant: (1) knowingly used or carried a firearm ... (2) during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. United States v. Martinez, 967 F.2d 1343, 1346 (9th Cir.1992) (citation omitted). Possession of drugs with intent to distribute, conviction for which Pratt does not appeal, is a drug trafficking crime for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c). United States v. Contreras, 895 F.2d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.1990). 23 The parties dispute whether there was sufficient evidence that Pratt used or carried a firearm in relation to drug trafficking within the meaning of Sec. 924(c). To use or carry a firearm requires that the firearm be within the possession or control or available to the defendant. United States v. Torres-Medina, 935 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir.1985). [A] firearm may be considered available ..., if its physical proximity to the defendant at any time during the commission of the crime, or during arrest, supports the inference that it emboldened [the defendant] to commit the underlying [drugs] offense or to resist arrest. Id. at 1050 (emphasis added) (upholding conviction of physically handicapped defendant based on gun and drugs found in crawl space under his house). Pratt contends that the guns which were found did not embolden him, because a witness who often dealt with Pratt never remarked about gun use by Pratt. (Appellant Opening Brief, 23). Pratt's contention is irrelevant, because to violate Sec. 924(c), a defendant need not ever actually display or brandish a firearm. United States v. Torres-Rodriguez, 930 F.2d 1375, 1385 (9th Cir.1991). Possession of a firearm in a location where it can be used to further a drug crime is sufficient. United States v. Garcia, 997 F.2d 1273, 1284 (9th Cir.1993). 24 Section 924(c) also requires that the firearm be used in relation to drug trafficking. The nexus exists [i]f the firearm is within the possession or control of a person who commits a [drug trafficking] crime ... [and] the firearm facilitated or had a role in the crime.... United States v. Stewart, 779 F.2d 538, 540 (9th Cir.1985). Close proximity of a firearm to drugs suggests strongly that the possession of the weapon is related to the drug trafficking crime. Torres-Medina, 935 F.2d at 1049. Furthermore, a jury reasonably may infer that an armed possessor of drugs has more in mind than personal use and is using the firearm to facilitate his drug trafficking. United States v. Power, 881 F.2d 733, 736 (9th Cir.1989). The jury heard that Officer Hennigan found three loaded guns under a chair, near where Pratt was sitting in his small room, and next to rock cocaine, as well as evidence that drug dealers, such as Pratt, typically possess firearms. This evidence was sufficient to prove a nexus between Pratt's drug trafficking and using a firearm. See, e.g., United States v. Walker, 993 F.2d 196, 200 (9th Cir.1993) (close proximity between the defendant, a loaded gun in the living room of his apartment, and drugs in the kitchen), cert. denied, --- S.Ct. ----, 62 U.S.L.W. 3252 (U.S. Oct. 4, 1993) (No. 93-5662); Martinez, 967 F.2d at 1346 (9th Cir.1992) (firearm and cocaine in same room). 25 We therefore find sufficient evidence in the record for a rational juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the three guns found in Pratt's room were available to him and related to his possession of drugs with intent to distribute. 26 AFFIRMED.