§ 924(c) imposed a mandatory, consecutive five-year prison term on anyone who "during and in relation to any... drug trafficking crime... uses a firearm."

The lower court had sustained the defendants' convictions, defining "use" in such a way as to mean little more than mere possession.

As a result of the Court's decision in Bailey, Congress amended the statute to expressly include possession of a firearm as requiring the additional five-year prison term.

A subsequent search of the passenger compartment revealed 27 plastic bags containing a total of 30 grams of cocaine.

Circuit's mistake stemmed from its defining "use" by "accessibility and proximity," a standard that in practice swept up more than active employment but most instances of mere possession.

"In practice, nearly every possession of a firearm by a person engaged in drug trafficking would satisfy the standard."

In Bailey, the Supreme Court was required to clarify the meaning of the disputed statutory term “use” under § 924(c)(1), which imposed a five-year mandatory minimum sentence on a person who “uses or carries a firearm” during a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime.

[1] Ultimately, the Court assumed that Congress intended both “use” and “carry” to “have a particular, nonsuperfluous meaning,” and thereby gave “use” a more limited overtone.

[2] The unanimous decision narrowed the Court’s previous decision in Smith v. United States in which the majority contended that Congress intended to give the word “use” a “broad meaning,”[3] and accordingly rejected the defense’s argument[4] that the statute was limited to the use of a firearm “as a weapon.”[5] Defining "use" as "active employment" required the Court to remand the cases for further proceedings.

After Bailey was issued, however, Congress responded by broadening the statute, essentially overruling the Court's decision by statutory amendment.