Lexplug logoLexplug

United States v. Stewart, Maurice

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
2001 WL 436085, 246 F.3d 728 (2001)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A defendant does not "use" a firearm within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) when they merely receive the weapon as payment in exchange for drugs; statutory "use" requires active employment of the firearm, such as bartering with it, rather than passively accepting it.


Facts:

  • In the Spring of 1991, Stewart and two associates sold crack cocaine to undercover police officers on multiple occasions.
  • During one sale, officers mentioned they were "running guns," prompting Stewart to ask if he could obtain an AK-47.
  • In a subsequent meeting, Stewart and an associate negotiated to purchase two 9mm handguns from the officers for $500.
  • On May 10, Stewart and his co-conspirators met the officers to finalize the transaction.
  • The co-conspirators provided the officers with 250 grams of crack cocaine.
  • In exchange, the officers gave the group $7,000 in cash and a bag containing the agreed-upon firearms.
  • Stewart took physical possession of the firearms from the officers.
  • Stewart was arrested immediately after taking possession of the guns.

Procedural Posture:

  • A federal grand jury indicted Stewart on seventeen counts.
  • Stewart pleaded guilty in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and conspiracy to obtain firearms (§ 924(c)).
  • The District Court sentenced Stewart to 188 months for the drug count and 60 months for the gun count.
  • The D.C. Circuit affirmed Stewart's conviction and sentence on direct appeal.
  • Stewart filed a motion for collateral review (habeas corpus) in the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing his conviction was invalid under the new Supreme Court ruling in Bailey.
  • The District Court denied the motion, ruling that trading drugs for guns constitutes 'use.'
  • Stewart appealed the denial of his motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a defendant "use" a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), when he provides drugs to a buyer in exchange for receiving the firearm?


Opinions:

Majority - Sentelle

No, the court held that a person who receives a gun in a trade for drugs has not "used" the gun under the federal statute. The court reasoned that under the Supreme Court's precedent in Bailey v. United States, "use" requires active employment of the firearm. While the Supreme Court in Smith v. United States held that trading a gun for drugs constitutes use, the court distinguished that scenario from the present facts. Here, Stewart used drugs to get a gun, rather than using a gun to get drugs. The court adopted the logic that a person receiving payment does not "use" the payment in a grammatical or ordinary sense; just as a person buying coffee uses a dollar bill but not the coffee, Stewart used the drugs (as currency) but not the gun (the item purchased). Therefore, mere receipt of a firearm does not satisfy the active employment requirement of § 924(c).



Analysis:

This decision represents a significant narrowing of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) liability in the wake of the Supreme Court's Bailey decision. It deepens a circuit split, aligning the D.C. Circuit with the Sixth and Seventh Circuits while diverging from the Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits regarding 'drugs-for-guns' trades. The ruling emphasizes a strict textualist and grammatical approach to statutory interpretation, distinguishing between the 'currency' in a transaction and the 'item purchased.' Practically, this prevents prosecutors in the D.C. Circuit from adding the specific § 924(c) mandatory minimum sentence to drug dealers who merely acquire weapons through barter, unless they actively employ them in some other way. The court explicitly overturned its own prior precedent (United States v. Harris) in light of the Supreme Court's intervention in Bailey.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Stewart, Maurice (2001)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"