Opinion ID: 445503
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: explosive

Text: 36 Defendant contends finally that insufficient evidence was presented as to whether an explosive was used in the Double Z arson as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 844(i). The defendant's argument is without merit. Gasoline and gasoline soaked towels which exploded when ignited constitute an explosive within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 844(i). 6 United States v. Xheka, 704 F.2d 974, 979 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 486, 78 L.Ed.2d 682 (1983). Oden testified that he bought gasoline with the defendant and that the defendant poured it into holes drilled into the roof of the Double Z. White testified that he saw the defendant pour a substance from a gas can into holes drilled into the roof of the Double Z before lighting a rag and throwing it onto the roof of the Double Z and that he then saw the defendant throw a gas can into a nearby dumpster. This gas can was recovered and analyzed by the government's chemist, who found it to contain gasoline. Finally, the fact that an explosion occurred immediately after the defendant ignited what he had poured into the Double Z, as both Oden and White testified, also demonstrates that an explosive was used. See Xheka, 704 F.2d at 979. We therefore believe that ample evidence was presented to permit a rational trier of fact to find that the substance defendant poured through the roof of the Double Z was gasoline and that the combination of the gasoline and air inside the Double Z exploded when ignited. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).