AND · 18usc924:during-relation
Both temporal coincidence and a facilitating relationship are required for use/carry. Smith explains at least facilitation or potential facilitation; coincidence alone is insufficient. Apply the corresponding nexus to ammunition under (c)(5).
Exact element source
during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crimeSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title18.jsonl#title18_sec924; Unicode character offsets [4322:4395] (end exclusive); SHA-256 899fad466e76614e7f7b0bb794089010ef0af034312bcd194c76394228dbfdc4.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unclassified route provisional; 3 observed cases | no definition yet | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 3 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (3). Excluded context examples:Bailey v. United States — 516 U.S. 137 (1995) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1995 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted Muscarello v. United States — 524 U.S. 125 (1998) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1998 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted Dean v. United States — 556 U.S. 568 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — not reached · basis not recorded (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted |
| _procedural accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is only the occasion for a procedural ruling. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:United States v. Holland — 116 F.3d 1353 (1997) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997 — satisfied · proved (18usc924: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/procedural · not counted |
| means-of-violent-crime provisional; 2 observed cases | Whether the firearm was the instrument by which the crime of violence was carried out. | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 1 | United States v. JT Myore — 142 F.4th 606 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2025 — satisfied · proved (18usc924: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted United States v. Phipps — 319 F.3d 177 (2003) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2003 — satisfied · proved (18usc924: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/lower-court · not counted |
| protection-of-drugs-or-proceeds provisional; provisional (1 case) | Whether a firearm kept to protect drugs, proceeds or the dealer has the required nexus to the drug offence. | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | United States v. Ocampo — 890 F.2d 1363 (1989) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1989 — satisfied · proved (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Ocampo — 890 F.2d 1363 (1989) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1989 — satisfied · proved (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | During and in relation to the predicate | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (c)(1); party: Ocampo (passenger); subject: party=Ocampo (passenger) The court rejects the argument that the 1984 "in relation to" wording demands a stronger link: it only excludes inadvertent carrying during an unrelated crime. The variant label is borrowed from the furtherance hints (same fact pattern: loaded gun protecting a drug shipment); the law file declares no variant for during-relation. | protection/drugs-or-proceeds | The cocaine in the vehicle was found in the white plastic bag which Escobar was observed carrying into and out of the apartment premises.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_890.jsonl#/f2d/890/1363-01; Unicode character offsets [6708:6845] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e699608e067b8f06d6f5b6d302a4c98cc2cc7bf61d9d69b090e1570dffbe3abe.Ocampo walked down the stairwell first to the parking lot and again engaged in counter-surveillance while Escobar remained in the stairwell.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_890.jsonl#/f2d/890/1363-01; Unicode character offsets [4677:4817] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e699608e067b8f06d6f5b6d302a4c98cc2cc7bf61d9d69b090e1570dffbe3abe.the gun was recovered from underneath the passenger seat and was not displayed in any manner during the encounterSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_890.jsonl#/f2d/890/1363-01; Unicode character offsets [23182:23295] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e699608e067b8f06d6f5b6d302a4c98cc2cc7bf61d9d69b090e1570dffbe3abe.namely, that a person could not be prosecuted for inadvertently carrying a firearm in an obviously unrelated crime.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_890.jsonl#/f2d/890/1363-01; Unicode character offsets [24013:24128] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e699608e067b8f06d6f5b6d302a4c98cc2cc7bf61d9d69b090e1570dffbe3abe.The evidence on the record in this case places Ocampo's conduct clearly within the parameters of § 924(c)(1) as the government produced sufficient evidence at trial to link the gun to the narcotics offenses and to prove that the weapon was not inadvertently carried in relation to an obviously unrelated crime.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_890.jsonl#/f2d/890/1363-01; Unicode character offsets [24153:24463] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e699608e067b8f06d6f5b6d302a4c98cc2cc7bf61d9d69b090e1570dffbe3abe. |
| United States v. Holland — 116 F.3d 1353 (1997) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1997 — satisfied · proved (18usc924: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | During and in relation to the predicate | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural basis: proved; claim: (c)(1); party: Holland (driver and owner of the car); subject: party=Holland (driver and owner of the car) SCOPE: same collateral actual-prejudice analysis as the carry block, hence `scope procedural`. The nexus was not challenged in this proceeding; the court holds only that the jury necessarily found it under instructions untouched by Bailey. The fact lines are the background facts recited, not facts the court ties to the nexus in terms. | jury-finding-common-to-both-prongs/gun-in-vehicle-with-drugs-cash-pagers | Both defendants possessed cash and pagers purchased by Mr. HollandSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_116.jsonl#/f3d/116/1353-01; Unicode character offsets [1335:1401] (end exclusive); SHA-256 009438fcc9986a862dab6e536f87dd90ffb69c8d6d1ff9836d80b1c1b859efb8.Three ounces of cocaine in a cosmetic bag were found by the side of the road where the traffic stop occurred.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_116.jsonl#/f3d/116/1353-01; Unicode character offsets [1506:1615] (end exclusive); SHA-256 009438fcc9986a862dab6e536f87dd90ffb69c8d6d1ff9836d80b1c1b859efb8.As we have pointed out, the “during and in relation to” element was not affected by the holding in Bailey.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_116.jsonl#/f3d/116/1353-01; Unicode character offsets [18138:18244] (end exclusive); SHA-256 009438fcc9986a862dab6e536f87dd90ffb69c8d6d1ff9836d80b1c1b859efb8.The jury necessarily found that the gun was being transported in the vehicle owned and operated by Mr. Holland, that Mr. Holland possessed the gun, and that he did so dining and in relation to a drug trafficking offense, all findings it was required to make under the instructions for either a “using” or “carrying” conviction.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_116.jsonl#/f3d/116/1353-01; Unicode character offsets [16205:16532] (end exclusive); SHA-256 009438fcc9986a862dab6e536f87dd90ffb69c8d6d1ff9836d80b1c1b859efb8. |
| United States v. Phipps — 319 F.3d 177 (2003) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2003 — satisfied · proved (18usc924: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/wave2-cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | During and in relation to the predicate | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / lower-court basis: proved; claim: (c)(1); party: Phipps and Gilley; count: counts 3 and 5; subject: party=Phipps and Gilley; count=counts 3 and 5 The jury found the nexus for both predicates and nobody challenged it; the court's own description (the gun to the head is what produced both the car and the abduction) is quoted, but the nexus itself is not reviewed. | weapon-compels-victim/gunpoint-abduction-and-vehicle-taking | True enough, this single use allowed defendants to commit two crimes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_319.jsonl#/f3d/319/0177-01; Unicode character offsets [18365:18434] (end exclusive); SHA-256 410aaa82568aa70a38c1453cbb5b2af50d068e8cb1e58133e8a057f9487ef545.They could have committed either offense without committing the other: They could have taken Pasquariello’s car without abducting her, or vice versa.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_319.jsonl#/f3d/319/0177-01; Unicode character offsets [18534:18683] (end exclusive); SHA-256 410aaa82568aa70a38c1453cbb5b2af50d068e8cb1e58133e8a057f9487ef545.§ 924(c)(1) criminalizes the use of a firearm during and in relation to the predicate offense, not in regard to a defendant’s purposes in using the firearmSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_319.jsonl#/f3d/319/0177-01; Unicode character offsets [18846:19001] (end exclusive); SHA-256 410aaa82568aa70a38c1453cbb5b2af50d068e8cb1e58133e8a057f9487ef545. |
| United States v. JT Myore — 142 F.4th 606 (2025) · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2025 — satisfied · proved (18usc924: author: Flash3 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | During and in relation to the predicate | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (c)(1)(A)(ii); party: JT Myore; count: 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), using and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to the August 25, 2019 carjacking (18 U.S.C. § 2119; charged with § 2 aiding and abetting); subject: party=JT Myore; count=18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), using and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to the August 25, 2019 carjacking (18 U.S.C. § 2119; charged with § 2 aiding and abetting) The contested point on appeal was temporal: Myore argued the victim relinquished the car before any gun was brandished, so the brandishing was not "during" the carjacking. The court holds a jury could place the taking at the moment the armed men demanded the car and the victim abandoned it. | guns displayed to make the driver surrender the car, i.e. before the carjacking's taking was complete (contrast shots fired after driving away, Long Pumpkin) | In Long Pumpkin we concluded that discharge of a firearm after the carjackers drove away in the stolen vehicle was not “during” the initial carjacking.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/606; Unicode character offsets [12082:12233] (end exclusive); SHA-256 39c5169a3d803b9d63901cd4c63869686db1bb29cf827c55eafcd327eaf0938e.Swallow testified that after he heard the gunshots, Myore and Running Shield walked toward the Ford Freestyle, Myore “jump[ed] in the black car and they take off speeding.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/606; Unicode character offsets [5182:5354] (end exclusive); SHA-256 39c5169a3d803b9d63901cd4c63869686db1bb29cf827c55eafcd327eaf0938e.“I was going to let them take the car,” he testified.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/606; Unicode character offsets [3777:3830] (end exclusive); SHA-256 39c5169a3d803b9d63901cd4c63869686db1bb29cf827c55eafcd327eaf0938e.Initially, Swallow testified that he did not see a gun before he reached his front porch, where he heard multiple gunshots fired behind him and turned to see Running Shield putting a gun in his pocket.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/606; Unicode character offsets [4532:4733] (end exclusive); SHA-256 39c5169a3d803b9d63901cd4c63869686db1bb29cf827c55eafcd327eaf0938e.This was sufficient evidence to convict Myore under § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) of knowingly brandishing a firearm “during and in relation to” a crime of violence.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl#/f4th/142/606; Unicode character offsets [12659:12813] (end exclusive); SHA-256 39c5169a3d803b9d63901cd4c63869686db1bb29cf827c55eafcd327eaf0938e. |
| Bailey v. United States — 516 U.S. 137 (1995) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1995 — not reached (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | During and in relation to the predicate | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (c)(1) The holding describes use as making the firearm "an operative factor in relation to the predicate offense", but the nexus element is not separately analysed. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Muscarello v. United States — 524 U.S. 125 (1998) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1998 — not reached (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | During and in relation to the predicate | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (c)(1) The Court relies on this element as the limit on its broad reading of "carry" (answering the checked-luggage hypothetical) but does not review whether it was met; the courts of appeals had found it, and Muscarello had admitted it at his plea before recanting. | Unspecified route | During plea proceedings, Muscarello admitted that he had “carried” the gun “for protection in relation” to the drug offenseSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_524.jsonl#/us/524/0125-01; Unicode character offsets [902:1025] (end exclusive); SHA-256 90ca66b30e958162a71baf4038bf5a49a4311a516e691a4aceb9d17a25c6f2b0.Congress added these words in part to prevent prosecution where guns “played” no part in the crime.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_524.jsonl#/us/524/0125-01; Unicode character offsets [21384:21483] (end exclusive); SHA-256 90ca66b30e958162a71baf4038bf5a49a4311a516e691a4aceb9d17a25c6f2b0.The limiting phrase “during and in relation to” should prevent misuse of the statute to penalize those whose conduct does not create the risks of harm at which the statute aims.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_524.jsonl#/us/524/0125-01; Unicode character offsets [25237:25414] (end exclusive); SHA-256 90ca66b30e958162a71baf4038bf5a49a4311a516e691a4aceb9d17a25c6f2b0. |
| Dean v. United States — 556 U.S. 568 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — not reached (18usc924: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | During and in relation to the predicate | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (c)(1)(A)(iii) Scope of the nexus phrases: "in relation to" attaches to use/carry and "in furtherance of" to possess; neither reaches the sentencing tiers. The element itself was not contested. | Unspecified route | The most natural reading of the statute, however, is that “in relation to” modifies only the nearby verbs “uses” and “carries.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0568-01; Unicode character offsets [7148:7275] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8dcdaa28023fec01d4ddfa8fcffe04c5ce5ef1a2e833faa40777b9e858bdfb6b.There is no basis for reading “in relation to” to extend all the way down to modify “is discharged.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_556.jsonl#/us/556/0568-01; Unicode character offsets [7528:7628] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8dcdaa28023fec01d4ddfa8fcffe04c5ce5ef1a2e833faa40777b9e858bdfb6b. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
The phrase “in relation to” thus, at a minimum, clarifies that the firearm must have some purpose or effect with respect to the drug trafficking crime; its presence or involvement cannot be the result of accident or coincidence.
Smith v. United States — 508 U.S. 223 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 (18usc924: author: unavailable · not independently reviewed)
The phrase “in relation to” thus, at a minimum, clarifies that the firearm must have some purpose or effect with respect to the drug trafficking crime; its presence or involvement cannot be the result of accident or coincidence.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_508.jsonl#/us/508/0223-01; Unicode character offsets [25717:25945] (end exclusive); SHA-256 fe1888ef3c4d62490662c69eac034f4ad490a5a5e0b5baf711ff62e9ca25392f.Both temporal coincidence and a facilitating relationship are required for use/carry. Smith explains at least facilitation or potential facilitation; coincidence alone is insufficient. Apply the corresponding nexus to ammunition under (c)(5).