Opinion ID: 2972648
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: amendment of indictment

Text: We review the sufficiency of an indictment de novo. United States v. Gatewood, 173 F.3d 983, 986 (6th Cir. 1999). Where there have been no objections, jury instructions are reviewed for plain error to determine whether the district court correctly stated the law in its charge to the jury and, if not, whether the error affected the defendants’ “substantial rights.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(a); see also United States v. Neuroth, 809 F.2d 339, 343 (6th Cir. 1987). An indictment is subject to a -5- 04-1739/1740 United States v. Williams/Acosta constructive amendment when “the terms of the indictment are in effect altered by the presentation of evidence and jury instructions which so modify essential elements of an offense charged that there is a substantial likelihood that the defendant may have been convicted of an offense other than that charged in the indictment.” United States v. Manning, 142 F.3d 336, 339 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Hathaway, 798 F.2d 902, 910 (6th Cir.1986)). Here, the indicted crime under § 924(c) was the illegal carrying or use of a firearm during or in relation to a drug trafficking crime. The jury, however, was instructed on the illegal possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. These different prongs of § 924(c) delineate separate crimes under the statute. United States v. Combs, 369 F.3d 925, 932 (6th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, by instructing the jury on the standard for the “in furtherance of” prong, the district court erred because that was not the charged offense. However, the “in furtherance of” prong is subject to “a slightly higher standard, encompassing the ‘during and in relation to’ language” of § 924(c). Combs, 369 F.3d at 932. Unlike Combs, in which the district court’s instruction allowed conviction for an “in furtherance of” crime using the less rigorous “during and in relation to” standard, here the erroneous jury instruction allowed the jury to convict Williams and Acosta of a “during and in relation to” offense using the more rigorous “in furtherance of” standard. Therefore, the jury could not have found that the defendants used or carried a firearm “in furtherance of” a drug trafficking offense without also implicitly finding that the defendants used or carried a firearm “during and in relation to” a drug trafficking offense. “From the House Committee Report we know that members regarded ‘in furtherance of’ as a slightly higher standard, encompassing the ‘during and in relation to’ -6- 04-1739/1740 United States v. Williams/Acosta language.” Id. (quoting H.R.REP. No. 105- 344, at 11 (1997)). Accordingly, the erroneous instruction did not modify the “essential elements of the offense charged” so as to create a substantial likelihood that Williams and Acosta were convicted of an offense other than the offense charged in the indictment. See Hathaway, 798 F.2d at 910.