context: A careful reading of our cases reveals that these elements of the statute establish two evidentiary requirements. First, they require proof of a "nexus ... between a particular drug offender and the firearm."
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 905 F.2d 1577, 1577
citation_a.parenthetical: noting possibility of conspiring in or aiding or abetting another's use of a weapon
citation_a.sentence: Long, 905 F.2d at 1577. This connection may be shown vicariously, as when a defendant engages in a conspiracy. See id. at 1577 n. 8 (noting possibility of conspiring in or aiding or abetting another’s use of a weapon); United States v. Powell, 929 F.2d 724, 726-28 (D.C.Cir.1991) (discussing knowledge required for accomplice liability under § 924(c)). Second, they require evidence “that the guns facilitate[d] the predicate offense in some way.”
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 881 F.2d 1128, 1141
citation_b.parenthetical: requiring "evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that the guns were an integral part of the drug trafficking operation"
citation_b.sentence: See also United States v. Anderson, 881 F.2d 1128, 1141 (D.C.Cir. 1989) (requiring “evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that the guns were an integral part of the drug trafficking operation”).