WPCm# Z&#N1{4"lݯt( 5 wasloaded,whethertheweaponwasstolen,how d accessibleitwastotheparticulardefendant, : thelegalityofitspossession,andthetime  andthecircumstancesunderwhichthefirearm  wasfound.XWXX XWl` x` x uy ` # XWXXXW#Inpractice,thesameevidencetendstoberelevant h whethertheultimatetestisobjectivefurtheranceorasubjective  purposetofurther.# #  5      ׀Similarly,inmostcasestheresultwillbe p  thesame,whicheverultimatetestisused.Thatappearstobetrue  here,andtherebeingnochallengetothewordingofthe \ instructiononthisscore,wefocusuponthesufficiencyofthe X evidence,takingbothsubjectiveandobjectiveevidenceinto   account. `   ` Startingwiththeobjectiveevidence,XWXX XWԀthepistolinthis  \  casewasloadedandlocatedintheopeninthesameroomasthe   fertilizer.Itcouldeasilyhavebeenusedagainstanyeffort,if d  onehadbeenmadebylawenforcement,todisruptthebombmakingor `  toapprehendtheconspirators.Thecasesdealingwithweaponsused   indrugdealingsregularlyuphold infurtherancefindingsbased h ontheweapon'scapacitytocounterresistance.%< #  6      ׀Actualusemaybe d morecommonindrugdeals,butthereisnorequirementthatactual  usebeproved.# XWXXXW# l  ` XWXX XWAdditionalevidenceastothedefendants'subjective h intentsupportstheviewthatbothChaseand_Felton_Ԁanticipatedthe  useofafirearminfurtheranceofthecrime.ByChase'sown p  admission,to_Niemczura_,thisverypistolwasacquired forher  protectionfromanyonetryingtointerferewithherplanwith \ _Felton_Ԅexploitsthatshesaidwouldearnherand_Felton_Ԁaplacein X history.Referencesbyadefendanttofuture"plans"cancertainly   bevague,asthedistrictcourtsaid,Chase,221F.Supp.2dat `  22021,butnotthesereferencesinthesecircumstances.  \   ` Asto_Felton_,evenbeforegettingoutofprisonhesought   toacquireafirearm(throughhiswife),andthereiseveryreason d  tothinkthat,havinglostthisgunwhen_Struss_ԀtookittoNew `  Jersey,hewouldhaveusedChase'sguntoprotecttheconspiracy.   Thisisgoodevidenceofsubjectiveintent,regardlessofwhether h Chasesstatementto_Niemczura_Ԁwasadmissibleagainst_Felton_.To d beadmissible,thestatementneednothavebeenmadetoafellow  conspirator,compareChase,221F.Supp.2dat212,withFed.R. l _Evid_.801(d)(2)(E);UnitedStatesv.Piper,298F.3d47,53(1st h Cir.2002),solongasitwasmadetoadvancetheconspiracy.   ` Insubsequentlysettingasidethejury'sverdict,the p  districtjudgeinvokedthe"merepresence"rubricadvancedincases !l" likeGrace,seeChase,221F.Supp.2dat21920,butthisrubric "$ mustbeunderstoodinrelationtoGracesfurtherpointthatactive t$& useisnotrequired.Grace,367F.3dat35.Yes,theunloaded  &p!( targetrifleinthelockedgunclosetduringadrugdealmaybe '#*  merelypresent;butthepistolonthetableduringthesamedeal, x)$, readilyusabletoprotectthedrugsandtointimidatethecustomer, $+t&. isenoughtoconvict.Thus,"presence"# XWXXXWԅ#(XWXX XWcanbeenoughtoconvict;  andthedifferencebetweenthisand merepresenceisamatterof \ degreeandcircumstances.Cf.UnitedStatesv.Ortiz,966F.2d X 707,712(1stCir.1992),cert.denied,506U.S.1063(1993).    ` # XWXX(XW#XWXX XWThereisperhapsmoreforcetothedistrictjudges `  cautionthat"onecansurelyspeculatehowthegunmightbeusedto  \  facilitatethebombmakingconspiracy,...[but]section924(c)   requiresamorespecificinquiry."Chase,221F.Supp.2dat221. d  Yetthedifferencebetween"speculation"and"reasonableinference" `  isprimarilyamatterofprobabilities,andwhileawholly   insubstantiallikelihoodofusecoulddefeatliability(e.g.,the h antiquegunboltedtothewall),thisisnotsuchacase. d  ` Theriskcreatedbythedefendantspossessionofthegun  wasrealenoughtopermitajurytoconvict.Merelyasanexample, l had_Struss_Ԁstartedtocooperateatanearlierstage,agentsmight h wellhaveapprehendedChaseand_Felton_Ԁattheirapartmentinstead  ofonthestreet.Furtherancecasesgenerallydoturnon"what p  ifs,"sodependingonthecircumstancesagunheld"justincase" !l" mayreadilysupportaconviction.CompareChase,221F.Supp.2d "$ at21819.Exceptintheextremecase,thisisthekindofcall t$& properlylefttothejury.  &p!(  ` Thedistrictcourt'sanalysisofthestatute'shistory '#* servesmainlytoconfirmthatCongressinitsmostrecentrevision x)$, meanttobroadenthestatute'scoverage.SeeH.R.Rep.No.105 $+t&. 344,at46(1997),1997WL668339(explainingtherevisionasa  responsetoBaileyv.UnitedStates,516U.S.137(1995)).Noone \ canbesurejustwhereCongressintendedtodrawtheline,butthis X iscertainlynottheparadigmcaseofaweaponpurchasedforsome   innocentpurposethathappenedtobestorednearthecrime.Cf. `  UnitedStatesv.Lawrence,308F.3d623,63031(6thCir.2002).  \   ` Theremainingquestionastothispartoftheverdictis   whether,asChasecontends,thedistrictcourterredbyrefusingto d  addtotheinstructionafurtherglosssoughtbyChasescounsel.) #  7      ׀ `  Counselarguedthat,inadditiontothe specificanddirect   connectionrequiredbythejudgesinstruction,thejudgeshould h alsotellthejurythattheweaponmustbe integraltothebomb d makingconspiracy.Thepurpose,accordingtoChase,wastoprevent  thejuryfromconvictingonthe"merepresenceoftheweapon. l  ` Inmostsituations,ajudgewhochargesinthetermsof h thestatutethe infurtheranceoflanguagehassubstantial  latitudeastowhetherandhowtoelaborate.Inthisinstance,the p  judgewentsomedistancetowardChase'sgoalbytellingthejury !l" specificallythat itisnotsufficientforthegovernmenttoprove "$ simplythatadefendantpossessedafirearmduringthesametime  that[the]conspiracytopossessadestructivedeviceoccurred." \  ` Whetherthe specificanddirectconnectionlanguageis X aperfectglossdoesnotmatter,forChaseherselfendorsedthat   partoftheinstruction.Asfor integral,itcouldeasilyhave `  misledthejuryintothinkingthatthegunhadtobecentralor  \  necessarytotheconspiracy,whenallthatisrequiredfor   convictionisthatthegunbepossessedinfurtheranceofthe d  conspiracy.Itwouldarguablyhavebeenerrortochargeinthe `  fashionsoughtbyChase;itwascertainlynoterrortorefusetodo   so. h  ` Theconvictionsenteredbythedistrictcourtare d affirmed,thesentencesarevacated,andthecaseisremandedfor  reinstatementoftheconvictionofeachdefendantundersection l 924(c)(1)(A)andforresentencingofeachdefendantonallcounts h ofconvictionapplicabletothatdefendant.Giventheremandfor  resentencing,weneednotreachclaimsoferroringuideline p  calculationsurgedby_Felton_. !l"  ` Itissoordered.# XWXXXW\#