United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 25, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-31094
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL A. WATSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
(3:04-CR-186-ALL)
--------------------
Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Michael A. Watson appeals his guilty-plea
conviction for use of a firearm during and in relation to a drug
trafficking crime, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Watson
traded a quantity of drugs to an undercover agent in exchange for
a handgun. Watson specifically reserved the right to appeal
whether this factual basis was sufficient to support his conviction
for use of a firearm under the statute.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Watson acknowledges our decisions in United States v. Zuniga,
18 F.3d 1254 (5th Cir. 1994), and United States v. Ulloa, 94 F.3d
949 (5th Cir. 1996), but he argues that these decisions are
distinguishable and thus not controlling. He asserts that, in his
case, government agents first proposed trading drugs for the
handgun, that he controlled the handgun for only moments before his
arrest, and that he could not have used the handgun because it was
unloaded. We conclude, however, that nothing in Zuniga or Ulloa
suggests that any of these factors are material to the
determination of “use” or otherwise render those cases
distinguishable.
Watson also asks us to “reconsider” Zuniga and Ulloa in light
of contrary decisions from other circuits. “It is a firm rule of
this circuit that in the absence of an intervening contrary or
superseding decision by this court sitting en banc or by the United
States Supreme Court, a panel cannot overrule a prior panel’s
decision.” Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452, 466 (5th
Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.
2