United States v. Thongsy

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a model jury instruction “should be revised to clarify [that] there are two ways to prove an offense under [18 U.S.C.] § 924(c)”
• holding that a model jury instruction “should be revised to clarify [that] there are two ways to prove an offense under [18 U.S.C.] § 924(c)”
• holding on de novo review that error was harmless where jury instruction “conflated the two clauses of § 924(c) by instructing the jury 6 that it could convict [the defendant] if it found that he ‘possessed’ a firearm (part of the second clause
• “A person has constructive possession when he or she knowingly holds ownership, dominion, or control over the object and the premises where it is found.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• expert’s testimony that drug dealers commonly use guns for protection and that defendant’s pistol would not be used for hunting was sufficient to show that the instructional error was harmless

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).