Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Voss, 82 F.3d 1521, 1524-25 (10th Cir.1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). Mr. Amores claims that the government has insufficient evidence to satisfy the “carry” element of the statute. When a motor vehicle is used, the definition of “carry” “takes on a less restrictive meaning than carrying on the person,” and “the government is required to prove only that the defendant transported a firearm in a vehicle and that he had actual or constructive possession of the firearm while doing so.” United States v. Miller, 84 F.3d 1244, 1258-59 (10th Cir.1996), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Holland, 116 F.3d 1353 (10th Cir.1997); see Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 139, 118 S.Ct. 1911, 141 L.Ed.2d 111 (1998) (<HOLDING>). Taking the evidence in the light most 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that carries a firearm includes one who knowingly possesses and conveys a firearm in a vehicle (B) holding that to apply the firearm enhancement the firearm need only reflect the context of the defendants possession and the defendants ability to use the firearm to promote the controlled substance offense (C) holding the word carry includes the carrying of a firearm in a vehicle (D) holding that carry includes carrying of weapons directly on the person (E) holding the word individuals is not the equivalent of the dictionary acts use of the word persons
Output (English): holding that to apply the firearm enhancement the firearm need only reflect the context of the defendants possession and the defendants ability to use the firearm to promote the controlled substance offense