Opinion ID: 51221
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tyler’s Appeal

Text: Tyler argues that mere possession of a firearm is insufficient to establish use under § 924(c) because there was no connection between the drugs and the firearm, he was unconscious and sitting on the firearm when police found him, and the amount of drugs was consistent with personal use. In support of his arguments, he cites Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995), and Turner v. United States, 396 U.S. 398 (1970). We review de novo the sufficiency of evidence, resolving all reasonable inferences in favor of the jury’s verdict. United States v. Diaz-Boyzo, 432 F.3d 1264, 1269 (11th Cir. 2005). In reviewing the denial of a motion for acquittal, “the relevant question is 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.”2 United States v. Eckhardt, 446 F.3d 2 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(a) provides that: “After the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant’s motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 29. 6 938, 944 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)) (footnote added). Because Tyler did not present any evidence following his Rule 29 motion, the sufficiency of the evidence against him must be evaluated solely in terms of the proof presented in the government’s case-in-chief. Id. To convict a defendant under § 924(c)(1), the government must demonstrate that the defendant used or carried a firearm, during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i); Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 227-28, 113 S.Ct. 2050, 2053, 124 L.Ed.2d 138 (1993). The government is not required to prove both using and carrying; the statute requires either use or carry. United States v. Chirinos, 112 F.3d 1089, 1095 (11th Cir. 1997). After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. First, this court has held that “[a] central and obvious concept inherent in the physical meaning of the word carry is that of some degree of physical transportation or movement.” Diaz-Boyzo, 432 F.3d at 1270; United States v. Mount, 161 F.3d 675, 679 (11th Cir. 1998). A defendant carries a firearm if it is carried directly on his person or carried in his vehicle. Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 131, 118 S.Ct. 1911, 1916, 141 L.Ed.2d 111 (1998); United States v. 7 Frye, 402 F.3d 1123, 1128 (11th Cir. 2005). In United States v. Young, 131 F.3d 1437, 1438 (11th Cir. 1997), the defendant had three guns in his car while he transported drugs for a possible sale, but no sale was in progress or even imminent when the defendant was arrested and the guns found. This court held that the jury “could reasonably link the vehicle and the guns to drug trafficking activity in order to satisfy the ‘carrying’ prong of the statute even though there is no direct evidence of a sale in progress or one that is imminent.” Id. at 1439; see also Chirinos, 112 F.3d at 1095-96 (finding evidence insufficient to show use, but sufficient to establish carrying where the defendant had two weapons under the seat of the car when he drove to an airstrip to steal cocaine). Here, the loaded firearm was found under Tyler’s leg near several bags of cocaine in a car Tyler rented. The fact that Tyler was unconscious (or asleep) when police found him does not negate the carrying element, as the gun was on his person and in his car at the time. Young, 131 F.3d at 1438; United States v. Quinn, 123 F.3d 1415, 1426-27 (11th Cir. 1997). Moreover, the evidence was sufficient to establish the “in relation to” element. The Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he phrase ‘in relation to’ . . . at a minimum, clarifies that the firearm must have some purpose or effect with respect 8 to the drug trafficking crime; its presence or involvement cannot be the result of accident or coincidence.” Smith, 508 U.S. at 238. “The gun at least must facilitate, or have the potential of facilitating, the drug trafficking offense.” Id. at 238 (citations and internal punctuation omitted). Here, the jury found Tyler guilty of possession with intent to distribute drugs. The firearm and the drugs were in close proximity to each other and to Tyler. Given the jury’s verdict, and the fact that Tyler “carried” the firearm, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that the firearm could facilitate the distribution. Accordingly, the government met this element of § 924(c). See Diaz-Boyzo 432 F.3d at 1270-71. Finally, Tyler’s reliance on Bailey and Turner are misplaced. In Bailey, the Supreme Court addressed the “use” prong and held that use required the government show active employment of the firearm rather than mere proximity. 516 U.S. at 143. As noted, however, the “carry” prong is separate, and Tyler’s conduct was consistent with “carrying” a firearm. In Turner, the Supreme Court reversed Turner’s convictions for possession with intent to distribute cocaine because the amount of drugs was consistent with personal use rather than with distribution. 396 U.S. at 413. However, in United States v. Robinson, 870 F.2d 612 (11th Cir. 1989), this court distinguished possession with intent to distribute crack, concluding that crack represented a more potent form of the drug and 9 therefore, a jury could infer intent to distribute from a lesser quantity than it would for cocaine offenses. Id. at 613. In this case, because the evidence showed that Tyler possessed 15 grams of crack cocaine, the jury could infer distribution. Robinson, 870 F.2d at 613.