Opinion ID: 1000622
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: grenade,

Text: (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (v) mine, or (vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses. 18 U.S.C.A. § 921(a)(4)(A) (West 1976). A Molotov cocktail -- a device comprising a bottle, gasoline, and a rag-- is a destructive device under this definition. See United States v. Simmons, 83 F.3d 686, 687-88 (4th Cir. 1996) (holding that Molotov cocktail was a destructive device under a virtually identical definition in another statute). We have already concluded that viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions of Tawalbeh, Obadya, and Rayed under § 924(c) for using a Molotov cocktail in the arson of the Corner Store under either an aider-and-abettor theory or a Pinkerton theory. See ante Part III.C. Having upheld their convictions, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err in finding them guilty under§ 924(c) by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not clearly err in imposing consecutive thirty-year sentences on Tawalbeh, Obadya, and Rayed. 27