
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
