IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT FILED
January 23, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 05-31094 Clerk
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)
--------------------
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The guilty-plea conviction of Defendant-Appellant Michael A. Watson for
use of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation
*
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not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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.
of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), was based on his trade of drugs to an undercover
agent in exchange for a handgun. When he pleaded guilty, Watson reserved the
right to challenge on appeal the sufficiency of the factual basis to support his
conviction under the statute.
We followed our precedent in rejecting Watson’s insistence that an act like
his —— obtaining a firearm in exchange for drugs —— is distinguishable from our
precedent sustaining convictions when the defendant receives drugs or other
consideration in exchange for a firearm that he possessed and gives up in the
exchange transaction.
The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari, and sub nom
Watson v. United States, —— U.S. —— (2007), reversed our affirmance of Watson’s
conviction.1 The court held that a person does not “use” a firearm within the
intendment of the statute when he receives it in exchange for drugs and
remanded Watson’s case to us for additional consistent proceedings.
Accordingly, we withdraw our previous opinion affirming Watson’s
conviction, reverse his conviction for use of a firearm during and in relation to
a drug trafficking crime, vacate the sentence imposed for that conviction, and
remand this case to the district court for further disposition consistent with our
1
Michael A. Watson v. United States, 06-571, Dec. 10, 2007.
2
ruling today, recognizing that a person does not “use” a firearm under 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A) when he receives it in exchange for drugs.
PRIOR OPINION AND JUDGMENT WITHDRAWN; CONVICTION FOR
VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) REVERSED; SENTENCE VACATED;
CASE REMANDED TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER
DISPOSITION CONSISTENT HEREWITH.
3