may please the court i'm john graham on behalf of cornell robinson this court's decision united states v stanley is directly on point and it requires a reversal of robinson's conviction under the duplicitous firearms possession  because of that duplicate this indictment and the general verdict sheet that was rendered in this case this court cannot determine whether robinson's right to a unanimous verdict  night of the trial your honor it was it was not objected to we don't dispute that this is therefore subject to plain error that's a real problem for you well your honor it is certainly a very deferential standard of review however there under the court's decision in robinson court reviewed out of an abundance of caution a duplicate this argument not under a plane excuse me not under a good cause standard but under a plain error standard  it's an earlier decision then the king case and so if if that's a conflict with king it would croll since the court has in the past here wasn't it wasn't just a jek instruction but there was a  under under stanley that's not directly done for their case i think the dunford is best understood as being limited to its unique facts your honor and i think that that subsequent decision  another doesn't create a different count or a different crime nor does it add an element of things it would be required  something's not perplex of this where you talk about one crime committed by act conceivably to me you know i think that the decision in good dean shows that when that the separate means involve different evidence there was evidence that could support a finding that you had the handgun under the stanley test that's not enough because it stanley the court explicitly will that there was sufficient evidence to support that session of one of the two firearms nevertheless it was  t as fact i don't think that there was ever it wasn't conceded that he had the firearm i don't think it was disputed question however that the way and it it may be true that if the government had charged that act of possession as a discrete count there would be no issue on appeal the problem is that the way the government charged the firearm possessions and instructed the jury they created alternate factual requirements to support the conviction they charged him with possession of and also possession of the shotgun zero because the definition of a crime only requires it to possess one weapon and you know the   one the all that the other weapons do is they don't do create a duplicitous can't they just create evidence for the jury to consider on its way to deciding whether or not the defendant possessed one of those weapons that those other weapons are not they don't create different camps think they're just emma didn't share well the jury to consider would have to you know when i'm asleep great that he possessed one of those guns that's what destruction well the instruction didn't have a specific unanimity instruction that they all had to agree on one of the guns and the way that the government the way that the government structured the firearms possession charge as an alternative between actual and constructive possession that the jury would have to have found different facts to support each of the fire you know the sometimes easy struct we know that they found that he possessed weapons they we know that the twelve jurors each of them believe that she possessed one of those weapons however we don't know that they were unanimous as to any one of them which they don't have  think that he answers that question your honor and i think that the if if each of those five counts is supported by separate evidence then under good and it's not guilty plus it is whether the defense would have objected to it or not against here the issue is that the jury could not have found that she actually and constructively possessed the same weapon because those two counts those two theories require opposite findings one required actual custody and one required control over a weapon that he did not have in his custody there was no evidence that he ever actually possessed the shot so the jury could have only found that he constructively possessed the shotgun and that jury disagreed and was not unanimous on those facts then they could not have you know three agrees with it returns guilty verdict we look at that and like most favorable to the government to the jury it yes your honor however i would also point out that that the as we've as we've stated in our brief there is there really was no evidence that he possessed the shotgun at all it was used by his codefendant exclusively there was no evidence of the control that he had over that shotgun which would have been required to support i don't know what then if there was evidence or so with your writings ever since then you have the other  evidence if it were the rule that because there was evidence supporting the pistol his conviction has to be affirmed then the court would have announced that rule and stanley because it specifically held that there was sufficient evidence to support possession but because the court in stanley could not determine which of the two guns he had been convicted of and there was no evidence to support the other one has it been suppressed the court reversed and since this court likewise cannot determine which of the two guns the jury found him guilty sassing it cannot assure itself that the jury was unanimous with respect to a gun that was supported by the evidence it for example if if eleven jurors thought he possessed pistol and one of them disagreed but thought that he possessed a shotgun there was no evidence to support the possession of the shotgun and not that therefore not the ends verdict as to the one gun that did have evidence sherry s drugs and because and because the indictment included multiple acts and the general verdict she doesn't allow the court to verify which gun he was found guilty of possessing the court's decision in stanley requires that it be reversed because this court cannot determine which of the two guns michael to say thank you may please the court the morning your honour's monor to be here for the first time i'm happy i think america my name is to show mclean a little thrown for a loop by actually i had an opening statement prepared more on the intent as to the carjacking rather than i agree i agree or i have listened to the argument only in terms of there was excellent trial counsel representing mr robinson and he did not make this an issue because it is just accepted law that if there are multiple guns being used in the same scheme that are recovered at the same time you set the same time that it constitutes one count and therefore trial counsel's argument was much more focused on the intent for carjacking obviously wasn't very successful it please the court i would just very briefly respond to the government's argument on the intent the government has certainly established that robinson made numerous and serious threats to crawford in this case her boyfriend they wanted to get something out of lights which are solely all yes there's no doubt that they intended to take her car but under the holloway standard he has to have the actual intent to kill or injure her if she doesn't her and making those threats he was demanding that she let him into his a into her apartment which she did not do and in hallways yes after she refused to let him into the apartment and in holloway the supreme court focused it is a jury question your honor but the ultimate standard of review for intent remains to know and the jury properly or it's the ultimate standard millions question well it is evidence that any reasonable fact finder don't know that would allow for a psychological injury all right thank you thank you