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