## 2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

8-28-2006 

# U SA v . P r ice

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al
D ocke t N o . 05-2968

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. 

## Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . P r ic e " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 494. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/494* 

## The Honorable Thomas M. Reavley, United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation. PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 05-2968

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. KEENAN PRICE, Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 03-cv-00147) District Judge: Honorable William H. Yohn, Jr.
Argued June 15, 2006 Before: FISHER, CHAGARES and REAVLEY, * 

## Circuit Judges

.
ORDER AMENDING OPINION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the opinion in the above case, filed June 30, 2006, be amended as follows: Page 2, footnote 1, line 3, which read: 18 U.S.C. § 922(c) (gun possession in furtherance); . . . shall read: 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (gun possession in furtherance); . . .

## 2 Page 2, first paragraph, second sentence, which read: Price raises three issues: first, that the District Court improperly allowed two police officers to present hearsay testimony about the contents of the radio report to which they responded; second, that the District Court improperly allowed the government’s expert witness to testify about Price’s mental state; and third, that the District Court improperly instructed the jury on the meaning of “in furtherance” in 18 U.S.C. § 922(c). shall read: Price raises three issues: first, that the District Court improperly allowed two police officers to present hearsay testimony about the contents of the radio report to which they responded; second, that the District Court improperly allowed the government’s expert witness to testify about Price’s mental state; and third, that the District Court improperly instructed the jury on the meaning of “in furtherance” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
Page 5, last paragraph, first sentence, which read: Finally, the District Court instructed the jury on the meaning of “in furtherance” in § 922(c). shall read: Finally, the District Court instructed the jury on the meaning of “in furtherance” in § 924(c).
Page 24, Part C, first paragraph, first sentence, which read: Price argues, finally, that the jury instructions failed to define the “in furtherance” component of § 922(c), and thus allowed the jury to infer that mere possession of a gun while committing a crime is sufficient for conviction. shall read: Price argues, finally, that the jury instructions failed to define the “in furtherance” component of § 924(c), and thus allowed the jury to infer that mere possession of a gun while committing a crime is sufficient for conviction.
Page 24, Part C, second paragraph, last sentence, which read:

## 3 By specifying that the gun must have “furthered” or been “integral” to the underlying crime, the instruction adequately conveyed that possession of a gun while committing a crime is not, in itself, enough for conviction under § 922(c). shall read: By specifying that the gun must have “furthered” or been “integral” to the underlying crime, the instruction adequately conveyed that possession of a gun while committing a crime is not, in itself, enough for conviction under § 924(c).
By the Court,

/s/ D. Michael Fisher Circuit Judge Dated: August 28, 2006 CRG/cc: Paul J. Hetznecker, Esq. Joseph F. Minni, Esq.