AND · 18usc924:furtherance
Ceballos-Torres affirmed on the combination of accessible loaded weapon, illegal possession, drugs and money. Neither mere presence nor a general assertion that drug dealers use guns suffices.
Exact element source
in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearmSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec924; Unicode character offsets [4668:4721] (end exclusive); SHA-256 899fad466e76614e7f7b0bb794089010ef0af034312bcd194c76394228dbfdc4.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| evidence/context | Fifth Circuit nonexclusive factors: activity type, accessibility, weapon type, stolen status, legality of possession, loaded condition, proximity to drugs/profits, time and circumstances. These are evidentiary considerations, not mandatory independent elements. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| instruction-error/use-carry-nexus-charged-on-possession-count | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/640/0412-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2011 — rule-announced/procedural | |
| protection/drugs-or-proceeds | Loaded, accessible gun protecting drugs or proceeds may support furtherance. | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/640/0412-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2011 — satisfied |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/640/0412-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2011 | Possession advances the specific predicate | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (c)(1)(A); party: Gómez (principal possessor); subject: party=Gómez (principal possessor) The element decided is that GÓMEZ's possession furthered the drug crime ("Gómez had the gun to protect the cocaine"). The point was argued by Alverio, the driver convicted as an aider and abettor, in his own sufficiency challenge, and the same reasoning disposes of Gómez's furtherance challenge by cross-reference; but this block does NOT record that Alverio himself possessed a gun in furtherance. His liability runs through the aiding-and-abetting route (`accomplice` block below), whose knowledge and facilitation requirements the court did not analyse. Defendants' wish to move the drug inspection out of the car holding the gun does not negate furtherance: the gun can protect the drugs in transit and the expected proceeds on the way back. The third fact line is the court's statement of the permissible inference. | protection/drugs-or-proceeds | Averio said that the other man in the car did not want Rodriguez to verify the drugs in the car.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_640.jsonl#/f3d/640/0412-01; Unicode character offsets [3313:3409] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b0386972fcb35c1f10ba94cb15f3a9301336c12f44dac5815a6c3d160bbe41c8.When the time came to verify the drugs, Averio asked Rodriguez if they could move to Rodriguez’s car.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_640.jsonl#/f3d/640/0412-01; Unicode character offsets [3120:3221] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b0386972fcb35c1f10ba94cb15f3a9301336c12f44dac5815a6c3d160bbe41c8.Here, a rational factfinder could conclude that Gómez had the gun to protect the cocaine on the way to the transaction and the money that the defendants expected to receive — $3,300 for each of the six “eighths” — on the way back from the transaction.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_640.jsonl#/f3d/640/0412-01; Unicode character offsets [15194:15445] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b0386972fcb35c1f10ba94cb15f3a9301336c12f44dac5815a6c3d160bbe41c8.From the driver’s side of the car, Agent Averio noticed a gun with an extended magazine in the passenger door “pocket.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_640.jsonl#/f3d/640/0412-01; Unicode character offsets [4926:5045] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b0386972fcb35c1f10ba94cb15f3a9301336c12f44dac5815a6c3d160bbe41c8.Alverio’s argument is meritless because a gun need not be present at the moment that drugs are verified, or at the moment that money or drugs change hands, in order to be possessed in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_640.jsonl#/f3d/640/0412-01; Unicode character offsets [14782:15006] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b0386972fcb35c1f10ba94cb15f3a9301336c12f44dac5815a6c3d160bbe41c8.Possession of a firearm “to protect drugs or sales proceeds” can constitute possession in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_640.jsonl#/f3d/640/0412-01; Unicode character offsets [15007:15137] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b0386972fcb35c1f10ba94cb15f3a9301336c12f44dac5815a6c3d160bbe41c8.The evidence would have been sufficient to support the conclusion that the gun was possessed in furtherance of the drug trafficking crime regardless of where the transaction occurred.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_640.jsonl#/f3d/640/0412-01; Unicode character offsets [15446:15629] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b0386972fcb35c1f10ba94cb15f3a9301336c12f44dac5815a6c3d160bbe41c8. |
| /f3d/640/0412-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2011 | Possession advances the specific predicate | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / procedural claim: (c)(1)(A); theory: unobjected jury instruction that charged "use or carry ... during and in relation to" instead of "possess ... in furtherance of"; plain-error review; also no "mere presence" instruction; subject: theory=unobjected jury instruction that charged "use or carry ... during and in relation to" instead of "possess ... in furtherance of"; plain-error review; also no "mere presence" instruction Conceded error, held not reversible on plain-error review: the instruction's requirement that the gun play (and be intended to play) "an important role", with protection/security as examples, was close enough to the furtherance nexus, and it also made a separate "mere presence" instruction unnecessary. The court reaffirms that furtherance is a slightly higher standard than during-and-in-relation-to. | instruction-error/use-carry-nexus-charged-on-possession-count | “[W]e have understood ‘in furtherance of to demand showing a sufficient nexus between the firearm and the drug crime such that the firearm advances or promotes the drug crime. For example, we have held that possession of a firearm to protect drugs or sales proceeds can establish such a nexus.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_640.jsonl#/f3d/640/0412-01; Unicode character offsets [21067:21361] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b0386972fcb35c1f10ba94cb15f3a9301336c12f44dac5815a6c3d160bbe41c8.“the ‘in furtherance of element of a firearm possession charge imposes a ‘slightly higher standard’ of liability than the nexus element corresponding to the different charges of using or carrying a firearm, which need only occur ‘during and in relation to’ the underlying crime.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_640.jsonl#/f3d/640/0412-01; Unicode character offsets [21844:22123] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b0386972fcb35c1f10ba94cb15f3a9301336c12f44dac5815a6c3d160bbe41c8.We cannot see, however, how the jury could have concluded that the firearm here played an important role in the commission of the offense without concluding that the weapon met the “in furtherance of’ requirement.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_640.jsonl#/f3d/640/0412-01; Unicode character offsets [22274:22487] (end exclusive); SHA-256 b0386972fcb35c1f10ba94cb15f3a9301336c12f44dac5815a6c3d160bbe41c8. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
Thus, firearm possession that furthers, advances, or helps forward the drug trafficking offense violates the statute.
Thus, firearm possession that furthers, advances, or helps forward the drug trafficking offense violates the statute.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_218.jsonl#/f3d/218/0409-01; Unicode character offsets [15344:15461] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a963d18b73c29e92d8f2a21df1df24215e7e78c5dbadce473f24bb45bdef5e61.Ceballos-Torres affirmed on the combination of accessible loaded weapon, illegal possession, drugs and money. Neither mere presence nor a general assertion that drug dealers use guns suffices.
interpretation
What is instead required is evidence more specific to the particular defendant, showing that his or her possession actually furthered the drug trafficking offense.
What is instead required is evidence more specific to the particular defendant, showing that his or her possession actually furthered the drug trafficking offense.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_218.jsonl#/f3d/218/0409-01; Unicode character offsets [13003:13166] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a963d18b73c29e92d8f2a21df1df24215e7e78c5dbadce473f24bb45bdef5e61.Ceballos-Torres affirmed on the combination of accessible loaded weapon, illegal possession, drugs and money. Neither mere presence nor a general assertion that drug dealers use guns suffices.