Court Opinion

ID: 2964619
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:28:23.218377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:44.901945
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                              _________________________

          No. 96-1880

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                Respondent, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              ABRAHAM D. OBJIO-SARRAFF,

                                Petitioner, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                    [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                           Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

               Guillermo  Gil,  United  States  Attorney,  Jose F.  Blanco,
               ______________                              _______________
          Assistant  United States  Attorney, and  Lisa Simotas,  Attorney,
                                                   ____________
          Department of Justice, on brief for appellant.
               Arthur  R. Silen and Roberts  and Newman, P.A.  on brief for
               ________________     _________________________
          appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                    March 10, 1997

                                 ____________________

                    Per Curiam.   A  jury convicted petitioner,  Abraham D.
                    Per Curiam.
                    __________

          Objio-Sarraff, of,  inter alia,  violating 18 U.S.C.    924(c)(1)
                              _____ ____

          (using  or carrying a  firearm during and in  relation to a drug-

          trafficking offense).   We affirmed his firearms conviction.  See
                                                                        ___

          United  States v. Castro-Lara, 970 F.2d 976, 983 (1st Cir. 1992),
          ______________    ___________

          cert. denied, 508 U.S. 962 (1993).
          _____ ______

                    Some years  later, after the Supreme  Court handed down

          its opinion in  Bailey v.  United States, 116  S.Ct. 501  (1995),
                          ______     _____________

          Objio-Sarraff brought  a petition pursuant  to 28 U.S.C.    2255,

          seeking  to set  aside his firearms  conviction.   The government

          conceded that  the evidence introduced at  trial was insufficient

          to establish "use" of  the firearm under Bailey, but  argued that
                                                   ______

          the  evidence  had satisfactorily  established  "carrying."   The

          district  court  defined  "carrying"  narrowly  and  granted  the

          petition.   See Objio-Sarraff v.  United States, 927  F. Supp. 30
                      ___ _____________     _____________

          (D.P.R. 1996).

                    While the  government's appeal was pending,  a panel of

          this  court decided United States v. Cleveland, ___ F.3d ___ (1st
                              _____________    _________

          Cir. 1997) [1997 WL 61397].  In construing 18 U.S.C.   924(c)(1),

          Cleveland adopted a broad reading of "carrying."  See id.  at ___
          _________                                         ___ ___

          [1997 WL  at  *13-14].    That reading  plainly  encompasses  the

          petitioner's  conduct.     See  Castro-Lara,  970   F.2d  at  983
                                     ___  ___________

          (affirming petitioner's    924(c)(1) conviction on  direct appeal

          and describing his relationship to the firearm).

                    Because the panel opinion in Cleveland is fully binding
                                                 _________

          on  us for purposes of  this appeal, see,  e.g., United States v.
                                               ___   ____  _____________

                                          2

          Wogan, 938 F.2d 1446, 1449 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 969
          _____                                  _____ ______

          (1991), Objio-Sarraff cannot prevail.  We need go no further.

                    The  judgment below  is  reversed on  the authority  of
                    _______________________________________________________

          United States v. Cleveland.
          __________________________

                                          3