Narrative Opinion Summary
The appellant's claim of insufficient evidence to support his conviction for carrying a weapon during a drug sale under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) is rejected based on the Supreme Court's definition of "carry." The court referenced *Muscarello v. United States*, which established that having a firearm in a nearby vehicle satisfies the statutory requirement of "carrying." The government presented adequate evidence demonstrating that the appellant possessed a gun in a proximate vehicle, fulfilling the legal criteria. The court affirmed the conviction. Additionally, this decision is not intended for publication and cannot be cited by the courts in this circuit, except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Definition of 'Carry' Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the definition of 'carry' as established by the Supreme Court, which includes having a firearm in a nearby vehicle, to uphold the appellant's conviction.
Reasoning: The court referenced *Muscarello v. United States*, which established that having a firearm in a nearby vehicle satisfies the statutory requirement of 'carrying.'
Non-Precedential Status Under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: This decision is not intended for publication and cannot be cited by the courts in this circuit, except as allowed by specific rules.
Reasoning: Additionally, this decision is not intended for publication and cannot be cited by the courts in this circuit, except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Sufficiency of Evidence for Conviction Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The government provided sufficient evidence that the appellant possessed a gun in a nearby vehicle during the drug sale, supporting the conviction under the statute.
Reasoning: The government presented adequate evidence demonstrating that the appellant possessed a gun in a proximate vehicle, fulfilling the legal criteria.