UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 97-50948
Summary Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEFFREY WAYNE EMMONS,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court,
for the Western District of Texas
(A-96-CA-851-JN)
_________________________________________________________________
July 27, 1998
Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jeffrey Wayne Emmons, federal inmate # 49023-080, appeals the
district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate,
correct, or set aside his conviction for using and carrying a
firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Because Emmons’s
appeal is straightforward, the interests of justice do not require
the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, Emmons’s motion for
appointment of counsel is DENIED.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Emmons contends that his conviction in 1989 under 18 U.S.C. §
924(c)(1) must be vacated because the definition in the jury
instructions of the term “use” was erroneous in the light of Bailey
v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995). The jury instructions did
not define the term “carry” and, therefore, the jury was permitted
to give the term its ordinary meaning. The only firearms relating
to Emmons, introduced into evidence at trial, were those he
transported in the trunk of his vehicle. Therefore, the jury’s
guilty verdict for “using” or “carrying” firearms, based on the
evidence at trial, necessarily encompassed the elements required to
sustain a conviction under the “carrying” prong of 18 U.S.C. §
924(c)(1). See Muscarello v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.
Ct. 1911, 1913-14 (1998) (holding that a firearm in the trunk of a
car satisfies the “carrying” prong of § 924(c)(1)); United States
v. Harlan, 130 F.3d 1152, 1153-54 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly,
Emmons is not entitled to § 2255 relief. See United States v.
Logan, 135 F.3d 353, 355-56 (5th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED
2