Court held that a conviction for “using” a firearm required proof of active employment of a weapon and that proof of mere possession was insufficient. The Court, however, made clear that its decision was intended to give new life to the “carry” prong of § 924(c). This intent was recognized by this Court in Bazemore v. U.S., 138 F.3d 947, 950 (11th Cir.1998). The decision in Bailey, however, did not negate the applicability of the Pinkerton doctrine to § 924(c) cases. U.S. v. Bell, 137 F.3d 1274, 1275 (11th Cir.1998) (per curiam). Accordingly, criminal defendants remain liable for the reasonably foreseeable actions of their coconspirators — including the using or carrying of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence. See U.S. v. Bell, 137 F.3d 1274, 1275 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). At the close of evidence but before the jury
holding no individual liability under the adea holding that liability under  2966 cannot attach without first finding employer liability for discrimination under nyhrl holding that a policy for purposes of municipal liability may be established by an officials single decision holding that coconspirator liability for a  924c offense may be established under pinkerton liability holding no liability existed under the circumstances