United States v. Jones
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory Louis JONES, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES PER CURIAM:
The Supreme Court has vacated our prior judgment in this case, United States v. Jones, 28 F.3d 1574 (11th Cir.1994), and remanded the case to us for further consideration in light of Bailey v. United States, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 501 , 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995).
In upholding Jones’ conviction for using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to the commission of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c)(1), we applied the pre-Bailey law of this Circuit that the presence of a weapon in a location near a significant quantity of illegal drugs is sufficient to submit to the jury the issue of whether the defendant used that firearm in connection with a drug trafficking crime.
Id.
at 1577-79 . The Supreme Court has now held that a defendant cannot be convicted under the “use” prong of § 924(e)(1) merely because a firearm is present at the scene of a drug crime. Instead, if the firearm is not “carried” there must be an active use, such as “brandishing, displaying, bartering, striking with, and most obviously, firing or attempting to fire.”
Bailey , — U.S. at -, 116 S.Ct. at 508 . More specifically, the Court has rejected the proposition “that a gun placed in a closet is ‘used,’ because its mere presence emboldens or protects its owner.”
Id.
In light of Bailey , we modify our prior opinion, insofar as it concerns the § 924(c)(1) conviction, 28 F.3d at 1577-79 , and hold that the evidence in this case was insufficient to support that conviction. Our affirmance of the remaining convictions stands. Accordingly, the “Conclusion” part of our prior opinion, id.
at 1582 , is modified to read as follows:
All of Jones’ convictions are AFFIRMED, except his conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c)(1). That conviction and sentence are REVERSED. All of Jones’ remaining sentences are AFFIRMED, except for the sentence he received for possession of the unregistered sawed-off shotgun, which sentence is VACATED. The case is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(exercising our discretion not to apply the concurrent sentences doctrine)
Cited by 13 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- United States v. Warren
- United States v. Campa
- United States v. Hayden
- United States v. Chirinos
- United States v. Howard William Harriston, Iii, A.K.A. Little Bill, A.K.A. Little Geek, A.K.A. Young Gun, A.K.A. Melvin Johnson
- United States v. Leonard Bingham (94-4330) Terrance B. Bagley (95-3006) Josephus M. Petaway (95-3171) Craig S. Houston (95-3173)
Most recent
- Franco Nicholas Padgett v. United States
- United States v. Samuel Knowles
- United States v. Campa
- United States v. Jayson Demarko Stevens
- United States v. Howard William Harriston, Iii, A.K.A. Little Bill, A.K.A. Little Geek, A.K.A. Young Gun, A.K.A. Melvin Johnson
- United States v. Howard William Harrison, III (Amended April 28, 2003)
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.