United States v. Dovel

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7687
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLES LEE DOVEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Walter E. Black, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CR-88-74-B, CA-96-1739-B)
Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: July 1, 1997
Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Lee Dovel, Appellant Pro Se. Andrea L. Smith, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles Lee Dovel appeals the district court's order denying
his motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997), his
motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and motion to correct his sen-
tence. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss.
Dovel pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute co-
caine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994) and to carrying a firearm
in relation to a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
(1994). He alleges that the Supreme Court's decision in Bailey v.
United States, ___ U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W. 4039 (U.S. Dec. 6, 1995)
(Nos. 94-7448, 94-7492), invalidates his § 924(c) conviction, plea
and sentence. Bailey provides no relief for Dovel because the deci-
sion did not analyze the factual basis needed to support a § 924(c)
conviction for "carrying" a firearm. Id. at 4042-43. The record
reveals that Dovel sold cocaine to a government agent while sitting
in his automobile and that Dovel reached into the back seat of his
vehicle and pointed a rifle at the agent. We find these facts suf-
ficient to uphold Dovel's § 924(c) conviction for a carrying a
firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense. See
United States v. Mitchell, 104 F.3d 649, 653 (4th Cir. 1997). Thus,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2