Opinion ID: 721518
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The impact of Bailey v. United States.

Text: 42 Next Feinberg contends that his conviction under Count 9 should be reversed pursuant to the Supreme Court's ruling in Bailey v. United States. The cornerstone of Feinberg's argument lies in the district court's instruction to the jury regarding the meaning of use and carry in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). The district court instructed the jury in relevant part as follows: 43 To sustain the charge of using or carrying a destructive device during and in relation to an extortion as set forth in Count 9 of the indictment, the government must prove the following propositions: First, the defendant is guilty of the offense charged in Count 7 of the indictment. Second, the defendant used or carried a destructive device during and in relation to the offense charged in Count 7. The phrase used and carried a destructive device means that the destructive device facilitated or had a role in the commission of the offense charged in Count 7 of the indictment. 44