Opinion ID: 609824
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Firearms conviction, Count Four

Text: 225 Count Four charged Chandler with aiding and abetting the use or carrying of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Chandler argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's guilty verdict. Sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law subject to de novo review. United States v. Poole, 878 F.2d 1389, 1391 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam). This court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and determine whether a reasonable jury could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Crawford, 906 F.2d 1531, 1535 (11th Cir.1990). 226 To prove a 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) violation, possession of the firearm must be an integral part of, and facilitate the commission of, the drug trafficking offense. Poole, 878 F.2d at 1393. At trial the government introduced evidence that Chandler recruited Raymond Pointer to transport marijuana from Piedmont, Alabama, to Anniston, Alabama, and provided Pointer with a car for that purpose. Pointer made three or four trips to Anniston. The prosecution then engaged in the following examination: 227 Q. Okay. And did you after you picked up this Oldsmobile, did you make any runs from Piedmont to Anniston with this Oldsmobile? 228 A. Yes, sir. 229 Q. Okay. Now, did you have an occasion on these runs to receive anything else from Ronald Chandler to keep with you on these runs? 230 A. Just that gun. 231 Q. Did he give you a gun? 232 A. Yes, sir. 233 Q. When did he give you a gun, as best you can recall? 234 A. I think it was two, maybe three days after he give me the car. 235 RVII-71-72. 236 Considering the testimony in its context, we find that there was sufficient evidence to support the Chandler's conviction on the firearm charge. The evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the government, shows that Chandler gave Pointer a gun when Pointer was given the marijuana to transport to Anniston. A reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the possession of the firearm was an integral part of, and facilitated, the drug trafficking, particularly in the context of other, substantial testimony at trial regarding the on-going criminal enterprise.