The Government argues that his conviction should be upheld because a guilty plea waives a defendant’s right to challenge the factual basis of the crime. Price’s challenge is not, however, a challenge to the factual basis for his plea. He does not now deny the conduct to which he admitted, or attempt to alter the facts underlying his conviction. Instead, he claims that the conduct that he admitted is no longer defined as a criminal “use” of a firearm under Section 924. Clearly, under the law as is now understood after Bailey, Price did not “use” the firearm on the facts before this Court. But Price did “carry” the firearm; he knowingly transported the gun with drugs in a portable gun bag placed next to him in a vehicle. See United States v. Mitchell, 104 F.3d 649, 653 (4th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Willett, 90 F.3d 404, 407
holding that possession of a pistol in public requires knowing possession holding that prior possession of a firearm is relevant when defendant denies knowing about the firearms presence holding that to apply the firearm enhancement the firearm need only reflect the context of the defendants possession and the defendants ability to use the firearm to promote the controlled substance offense holding the word carry includes the carrying of a firearm in a vehicle holding that the term carry requires knowing possession and bearing movement conveyance or transportation of the firearm