Source: law/NOTES-18usc924.md
# Research notes — 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) Scope: section (c)(1)-(4) firearm liability and consequences, with a clearly marked statutory-only (c)(5) armor-piercing ammunition branch. Section (e) ACCA is excluded. Section (j) appears only to mark the current prohibition on cumulative same-act convictions and the separate penalty scheme. Research date: 2026-11-10. Canonical source/offset contract is unchanged. `cited_by()["18 U.S.C. § 924"]` is a 50-entry recent list; it identified Brazier, Delligatti and Barrett. Older Supreme Court interpretation and Ceballos-Torres were retrieved from reporter IR records rather than treating the first six recent citations as doctrine. ## Substantive reading record Read windows below are actual Python character ranges (end-exclusive); they are not assertions that entire opinions were read. - **Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 143-50 (1995)** — [/us/516/0137-01](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/us/volume_516/0137_01/index.html); read @12140..13740; 19500..23500. Active employment, not storage or mere accessibility, defines use; convictions reversed with remand for carry inquiry. Pre-1998 possession language is not treated as current law. - **Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 126-27 (1998)** — [/us/524/0125-01](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/us/volume_524/0125_01/index.html); read @0..3500. Knowingly conveying a gun in an accompanied vehicle is carrying, including a locked trunk/glove compartment; judgments affirmed. - **Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 237-40 (1993)** — [/us/508/0223-01](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/us/volume_508/0223_01/index.html); read @0..1700; 23900..28300. Giving a gun in a guns-for-drugs trade is use; nexus requires purpose/effect or facilitation, not coincidence. Trade was integral to attempted possession/conspiracy. - **Watson v. United States, 552 U.S. 74, 79-83 (2007)** — [/us/552/0074-01](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/us/volume_552/0074_01/index.html); read @0..800; 10500..13200; 14400..18000. Receiving a gun in exchange for drugs is not use; reverses. Majority expressly leaves possession-in-furtherance theory unresolved. Ginsburg concurrence seeking to overrule Smith is not the holding. - **United States v. Ceballos-Torres, 218 F.3d 409, 414-15 (5th Cir. 2000)** — [/f3d/218/0409-01](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_218/0409_01/index.html); read @0..2100; 8500..17300. Possession must further/advance/help the specific drug crime. Nonexclusive factors are evidentiary; accessible loaded illegal weapon with drugs and money supported protection inference and affirmance. Suppression history is not the adopted substantive rule. - **United States v. Brazier, 933 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2019), part II.A** — [/f3d/933/0796-01](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_933/0796_01/index.html); read @7400..10500. Applies Davis to vacate firearm counts: residual clause cannot sustain them; kidnapping/ransom predicates also fail circuit elements-clause test. Violent actual conduct did not save those counts. - **Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65, 67, 77-78 (2014)** — [/us/572/0065-01](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/us/volume_572/0065_01/index.html); read @0..1900; 18500..22000. Aiding/abetting requires active predicate participation plus advance firearm knowledge allowing an opportunity to withdraw. Mere contemporaneous knowledge when gunshots begin is insufficient as an automatic rule; defective instruction required remand. - **Delligatti v. United States, 604 U.S. 423, 426, 433-34 (2025)** — [/us/604/423](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/clus/volume_604/423/index.html); read @7700..10200; 23600..27000. Reaffirms Davis/Taylor categorical inquiry. Deliberately causing injury/death by omission of a legal duty counts as use of force; New York murder predicate survives omission argument. Not every attempt falls with attempted Hobbs Act robbery. - **Barrett v. United States, No. 24-5774 (January 14, 2026), majority pp. 1-2** — [/cl/10774242](https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/clus/volume_cl/10774242/index.html); read @9300..11000; 44600..46500. Congress did not authorize convictions under both (c)(1)(A)(i) and (j) for one act. Only introductory majority rule is anchored; section IV-C is a plurality and is not used as a majority rule. ## What the statute states and courts supply The statute supplies two nexus formulations, the predicate alternatives, firearm object and penalty tiers. Use, carry, constructive possession, furtherance evidence, the categorical method and aiding-and-abetting intent are judicial constructions. The claims therefore keep (use OR carry) AND during/in-relation separate from possession AND in-furtherance. The predicates have their own required elements; a colloquial label such as violent crime is insufficient. Penalty nodes are deliberately absent from base liability formulas. Five years applies before any valid higher minimum; brandishing, discharge, specified weapon types and a later offense after a final prior conviction are separate consequence facts. Concurrent/probation rules are consequences, not universal offense elements. Round 5 now supplies Alleyne’s constitutional minimum-proof rule; the record still does not catalogue every aggravator-specific mens rea or prior-conviction question. The armor-piercing branch preserves statutory scope but has no separately researched interpretive case; do not silently extrapolate every firearm-conduct gloss to its special definitions. Ceballos-Torres factors are neither nationally uniform mandatory elements nor permission to infer furtherance from mere presence. Brown (935 F.3d 43), used in the rejected draft, resolves sentencing discretion rather than the operative offense test. It cannot support a predicate rule via the isolated citation 924(c). Hunter (2026) was screened and concerns plea/appeal waiver, not the needed firearm doctrine. ## Official primary-source currency checks - [Davis, official opinion](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-431_7758.pdf), pp. 24-25: (c)(3)(B) is unconstitutional. It remains verbatim in canonical statute text but is never an operative predicate alternative in this file. - [Taylor, official opinion](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1459_n7ip.pdf), pp. 3-6: categorical force-element inquiry excludes attempted Hobbs Act robbery; a substantial step need not itself be use/attempt/threat of force. Local 596 U.S. IR is unavailable; Delligatti supplies a current corpus-backed categorical rule quote. - [Delligatti, official opinion](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-825_q713.pdf): official holding confirms deliberate injury/death by omission qualifies as force. Read local majority pp. 426, 433-34 as recorded above. - [Barrett, official revised opinion](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-5774new_f20h.pdf): same-act (c)(1)(A)(i)/(j) convictions are mutually exclusive; do not infer that consecutive sentencing under (c) applies to (j). The exact anchor is from the local record version and is not silently replaced by web text. - [Official 2024 section 924](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title18/html/USCODE-2024-title18-partI-chap44-sec924.htm): verifies (c)(1)-(5), the final-prior-conviction wording, and the historical amendment notes. The retained semiautomatic-assault-weapon phrase is tied to the temporary 1994 amendment; an effective-date analysis is required before using it as a penalty predicate. These are bounded primary-source currency checks, not an exhaustive citator or a comprehensive sentencing catalogue. Source texts and the invalid residual clause have not been edited. ## Verification Run `python3 neov2/tools/lawdsl.py check neov2/law/18usc924.law` and independent claim-symbol resolution. Independent QA2 review remains required. ## Round 5 substantive re-audit (2026-11-10) The re-audit found concrete defects beyond quote equality. Section (c)(1)(B)(i)'s short-barrel tier and (c)(5)(B)(i)-(ii)'s murder/manslaughter alternatives were only glossed; they now have operative statutory anchors. `penalty.weapon` is disjunctive, and armor consequences distinguish the no-death base from the alternative death branches. The existing semiautomatic-assault-weapon sunset warning is retained instead of activating obsolete text. The greater-minimum provisos in **both** (c)(1)(A) and (c)(5) now support `higher-minimum`, linked by `minimum-selection` to punishment, not negated as if they defeat base liability. **Abbott v. United States, 562 U.S. 8, 13-15 (2010)** (`/us/562/0008-01`, read @0..3700 and @11200..12700) provides the exact majority holding @3127..3439: an unrelated higher minimum does not eliminate the consecutive section 924(c) sentence. Abbott construed (c)(1); no independent (c)(5) holding is asserted. The prior blanket description of aggravators as consequences left out their constitutional element status. **Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 111-12 (2013)** (`/us/570/0099-01`, read @0..3200 and @8200..9800) now supplies `minimum-proof`: facts increasing a mandatory minimum need jury proof beyond reasonable doubt, subject to admission/waiver. They remain absent from *base* liability formulas because brandishing/discharge are not universal five-year requirements. **Dean v. United States, 556 U.S. 568, 572 (2009)** (`/us/556/0568-01`, read @0..5200), already instantiated by a CASE file, now anchors the absence of a separate intent-to-discharge requirement. Dean's mens rea rule does not displace Alleyne's later jury-proof rule. The preexisting `accomplice` node was unconnected to a claim. A separate Rosemond use/carry attribution claim now specifies which conduct belongs to the armed principal and which advance knowledge/participation belongs to the accomplice. It preserves every existing element ID and does not impose personal gun handling on the accomplice. Broader Pinkerton and possession-attribution theories are not asserted by this route. Official primary verification: - [Section 924, official 2024 Code](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title18/html/USCODE-2024-title18-partI-chap44-sec924.htm): compared (c)(1)-(5), including both provisos and previously unanchored branches. - [Abbott, official United States Reports](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-562/pdf/USREPORTS-562-8.pdf): confirms treatment of higher minimum and consecutive punishment. - [Alleyne, official United States Reports](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-570/pdf/USREPORTS-570-99.pdf): confirms constitutional element proof for minimum-increasing facts. - [Dean, official United States Reports](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USREPORTS-556/pdf/USREPORTS-556-568.pdf): confirms accidental discharge can trigger the tier. Retained limits: ACCA and standalone (j) remain outside the declared offense scope; Barrett's narrow same-act (c)(1)(A)(i)/(j) point is not extended to every subsection. The armor branch has statutory anchors but no directly researched interpretive ammunition opinion. Statutory section 921 definitions, homicide definitions, every predicate offense's elements/defenses, and historical effective-date issues require their companion bodies of law. Prior-conviction proof exceptions, all weapon-type mens rea disputes, general defenses, and every accomplice/Pinkerton variant are not exhaustively modeled. This is not an all-section-924 catalogue or complete sentencing engine. Verification: 33 statutory spans and 13 rule spans pass. All 21 old IDs remain; four compatible block IDs, two constraints, and one attribution claim were added. All 46 blocks in 10 existing CASE files resolve. Substantive review kept Bailey active employment, Muscarello knowing conveyance, Smith nexus, Watson receiving-in-barter exclusion, and circuit-qualified Ceballos-Torres furtherance separate; no mismatched case pointer was found in those retained anchors.