516 U.S. 137, 116 S. Ct. 501, 133 L. Ed. 2d 472 (1995)
In May 1989, police officers in the District of Columbia stopped Roland Bailey after observing that his car lacked a front license plate and inspection sticker.1 Bailey could not produce a driver's license, so the officers ordered him out of the vehicle. As he exited, the officers saw him push an object between the seat and console.2 A search of the passenger area uncovered one round of ammunition and 27 plastic bags holding 30 grams of cocaine. Following Bailey's arrest, officers opened the trunk and discovered a loaded 9-millimeter pistol along with a large amount of cash.3
In June 1991, an undercover officer purchased crack cocaine from Candisha Robinson in her one-bedroom apartment. After a second controlled purchase, police executed a search warrant and located an unloaded, holstered .22-caliber Derringer inside a locked trunk in the bedroom closet, along with 10.88 grams of crack cocaine, Robinson's papers, and a marked twenty-dollar bill from the first buy.4
Both Bailey and Robinson were charged with violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) among other counts. At their separate trials, prosecution experts testified about the common use of firearms by drug dealers for protection. Juries convicted each defendant on the firearm count, resulting in consecutive 60-month prison terms.5
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit initially reached differing results in the two cases. A panel affirmed Bailey's conviction but reversed Robinson's. Upon en banc rehearing, the full court adopted an accessibility-and-proximity test and affirmed both convictions.6 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the meaning of "use" under the statute.7
Whether evidence of the proximity and accessibility of a firearm to drugs or drug proceeds is alone sufficient to support a conviction for "use" of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)?8
Section 924(c)(1) requires evidence sufficient to show an active employment of the firearm by the defendant, a use that makes the firearm an operative factor in relation to the predicate offense.9 The word "use" must be given its ordinary or natural meaning, which implies action and implementation rather than mere possession or storage.10 Congress specified two types of conduct with a firearm: uses or carries. Each term must have a particular nonsuperfluous meaning so that an active interpretation of use preserves a meaningful role for carry as an alternative basis for a charge.11
No. The proximity and accessibility test adopted by the Court of Appeals does not satisfy the requirement of active employment demanded by the statute.12 Applying the rule to the established facts, in Bailey's case the loaded 9-mm. pistol was found inside a bag in the locked trunk after a traffic stop revealed cocaine in the passenger compartment and there was no evidence that Bailey actively employed the firearm in any way.13 In Robinson's case the unloaded holstered .22-caliber Derringer was located inside a locked trunk in the bedroom closet along with crack cocaine and no evidence showed that Robinson had actively employed the firearm.14
The rule requires more than the gun's potential availability for protection or intimidation because storage of a firearm without its more active employment is not reasonably distinguishable from possession.15
Evidence of proximity and accessibility alone is not sufficient to support a conviction for use of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1).16 The judgments affirming the convictions under the use prong must be reversed because the facts show only possession rather than the active employment the statute requires.17
Whether the cases should be remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration of liability under the carry prong of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)?18
Because the Court of Appeals did not consider liability under the carry prong of section 924(c)(1) for either defendant, the cases are remanded for consideration of that basis for upholding the convictions.19
Yes. The Court of Appeals addressed only the use prong when it applied its accessibility and proximity test and affirmed both convictions.20 Bailey and Robinson were each charged under both the use and carry prongs. The lower court never evaluated whether the defendants carried the firearms during and in relation to the drug trafficking crimes.21
The remand permits the Court of Appeals to determine in the first instance whether the evidence satisfies the carry element under the proper legal standard.22
The cases are remanded for consideration of liability under the carry prong of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) because that issue remains unresolved by the Court of Appeals.23