No. 91-7611; No. 91-7814 | SCOTUS | Oct 13, 1992
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
In both of these cases, the petitioners contend that there was insufficient evidence to establish that they used a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18
The Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Sixth Circuits, construing the term “uses” broadly, held that the jury could reasonably conclude that the presence of the firearms was connected to the trafficking in that they could protect the petitioners’ merchandise. See also United States v. Blake, 941 F.2d 334" court="5th Cir." date_filed="1991-10-10" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-peter-blake-aka-david-clark-and-winston-wilson-566343?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="566343">941 F. 2d 334, 342-343 (CA5 1991); United States v. Molinar-Apodaca, 889 F.2d 1417" court="5th Cir." date_filed="1989-11-29" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-fernando-molinar-apodaca-enrique-felix-avila-margarita-guillen-felix-gloria-elena-hernandez-guillen-532555?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="532555">889 F. 2d 1417, 1424 (CA5 1989). Other courts have adopted the same approach. See, e. g., United States v. Wilkinson, 926 F.2d 22" court="1st Cir." date_filed="1991-02-11" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-robert-j-wilkinson-556387?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="556387">926 F. 2d 22, 25-26 (CA1), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1211" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1991-06-10" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/wharton-v-dube-9104270?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="9104270">501 U. S. 1211 (1991); United States v. Paz, 927 F.2d 176" court="4th Cir." date_filed="1991-03-04" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-rafael-antonia-paz-556667?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="556667">927 F. 2d 176, 179 (CA4 1991); United States v. Young-Bey, 893 F.2d 178" court="8th Cir." date_filed="1990-01-04" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-craig-young-bey-534618?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="534618">893 F. 2d 178, 181 (CA8 1990); United States v. Martinez, 967 F.2d 1343" court="9th Cir." date_filed="1992-06-23" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-roberto-martinez-united-states-of-america-v-roberto-martinez-585879?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="585879">967 F. 2d 1343, 1346-1347 (CA9 1992); United States v. Handa, 1991 U. S. App. LEXIS 21752 (CA9) (unpublished); United States v. Poole, 878 F.2d 1389" court="11th Cir." date_filed="1989-08-04" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/the-united-states-of-america-v-patricia-poole-aka-patricia-hunter-525696?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="525696">878 F. 2d 1389, 1393-1394 (CA11 1989).
The petitioners insist that § 924(c) does not contemplate presuming an intent to use a firearm in relation to drug trafficking from the fact that a gun was found in the same room as drugs and related paraphernalia. The Sixth Circuit remarked that Mukes’ position “has some support in case law from other circuits,” and, in particular, cited the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Feliz-Cordero, 859 F.2d 250" court="2d Cir." date_filed="1988-10-11" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-jorge-feliz-cordero-and-alexander-feliz-encarnacion-512881?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="512881">859 F. 2d 250, 254 (1988). See 1992 U. S. App. LEXIS 544, *2 (“[Feliz-Cordero] is difficult to reconcile with our circuit precedent. . . . Insofar as there is a conflict, of course, and unless the Supreme Court or Congress should instruct us
Because this issue arises with some frequency, and in light of the conflict in the Circuits, which shows no signs of abating, I would grant certiorari to clarify the meaning and scope of § 924(c).
Title 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) provides:
“Whoever, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime . . . uses or carries a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime ... , be sentenced to imprisonment for five years . . . .”
These cases involve only the “use” prong of the statute.
In United States v. Jackson, 1991 U. S. App. LEXIS 1757, *170 (CA6) (unpublished), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 828" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1991-10-07" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/ortega-v-tansy-9106080?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="9106080">502 U. S. 828 (1991), the Sixth Circuit noted that some courts had held that “the ‘in relation to’ language of section 924(c) requires more than ‘mere availability’: the circumstances must suggest that the defendant intend to and be able to use the firearms during the offense. This, however, has not been the law of the Sixth Circuit.”
Lead Opinion
C. A. 5th Cir.; and
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: No. 91-7611, 949 F.2d 770" court="5th Cir." date_filed="1991-12-18" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-rodney-featherson-aka-river-rat-james-edward-langston-and-ray-langston-aka-big-ray-572444?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="572444">949 F. 2d 770; No. 91-7814, 952 F.2d 404" court="6th Cir." date_filed="1992-01-09" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-francis-dabelko-alfred-conti-and-richard-dabelko-574683?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="574683">952 F. 2d 404.