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