Objio-Sarraff v. United States

• Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• Decided: March 13, 1997
• Docket: 96-1880
• Status: Published

Opinion

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