Opinion ID: 758068
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Defendant's Bailey Challenge

Text: 42 In the defendant's supplemental habeas corpus petition and during trial, Gray-Bey argued that his trial counsel's performance at sentencing was deficient because she failed to object to the court's consideration of his co-defendants' use of firearms. Gray-Bey argued that his co-defendants' use of firearms was not foreseeable to him, and therefore, the evidence presented by the Government did not support a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The trial court rejected Gray-Bey's claim because Gray-Bey did not state why his co-defendants' use of firearms was not foreseeable. 43 On appeal, Gray-Bey fails to further address this foreseeability issue and instead contends for the first time that the Government failed to show an active employment of a firearm by the defendant, as required in demonstrating a defendant's use of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), pursuant to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995). However, the defendant's Bailey argument is not the same as the foreseeability issue raised during trial proceedings. It is axiomatic that an issue not first presented to the district court may not be raised before the appellate court as a ground for reversal. Christmas v. Sanders, 759 F.2d 1284, 1291 (7th Cir.1985) (citation omitted). This is essential in order that parties may have the opportunity to offer all the evidence they believe relevant to the issues ... [and] in order that litigants may not be surprised on appeal by final decision there of issues upon which they have had no opportunity to introduce evidence. Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 556, 61 S.Ct. 719, 721, 85 L.Ed. 1037 (1941). 44 Under this Court's holding in Sanders, because Gray-Bey failed to raise his Bailey claim before the trial court, he cannot raise it before this Court.