Pirtle

MEMORANDUM *

Defendant Mark Douglas Pirtle appeals from the district court’s denial of his § 2255 motion. He argues that there is insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c)(1) for using or carrying a firearm “during and in relation to” a drug-trafficking crime. On de novo review, we affirm.

Defendant was convicted of conspiring to manufacture methamphetamine, in addition to the firearm charge; a drug-trafficking crime thus is conclusively established. He essentially does not contest that he was “carrying a firearm,” but contests whether he did so “during and in relation to” the drug-trafficking crime.

The gun facilitated or had the potential to facilitate the drug crime. Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 238 , 113 S.Ct. 2050 , 124 L.Ed.2d 138 (1993) (stating standard and citing United States v. Stewart, 779 F.2d 538, 539-40 (9th Cir.1985), with approval). Defendant’s delivery of a Subaru Brat vehicle to his three co-conspirators in Idaho was a key to the success of the conspiracy, because it was intended to transport the precursor chemicals back to California. A rational jury could conclude that the firearm that he carried with him in the…