United States v. Howard
This text of United States v. Howard (United States v. Howard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-60422 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CASEY GERARD HOWARD,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:96-CV-279-BN - - - - - - - - - - December 26, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Casey Howard, federal prisoner #02968-043, appeals from the
district court’s denial of his motion to set aside his sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Howard contends that, after the
Supreme Court’s recent definition of the “use” prong of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c) in United States v. Bailey, 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995), the
evidence is not sufficient to support his conviction for using or
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. No. 96-60422 - 2 -
carrying a firearm in connection with a drug-trafficking crime.
Because the evidence in the presentence investigation report and
the evidence presented at the guilty-plea hearing support a
determination that Howard carried the firearm during and in
relation to the drug-trafficking offense even though he was the
passenger rather than the operator of the vehicle, the evidence
was sufficient to support his conviction under § 924(c). See
United States v. Rivas, 85 F.3d 193, 195-96 (5th Cir. 1996). The
district court did not err by denying Howard’s § 2255 motion.
This court has not yet determined whether a certificate of
appealability (COA) is required under the circumstances of this
appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. If a COA were required, it would
be DENIED.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Howard, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-howard-ca5-1997.