for brandishing a firearm was “overwhelming and essentially uncontroverted,” and as a result, the error here did not “seriously a£feet[] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Cotton, 535 U.S. at 683, 122 S.Ct. 1781 (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we affirm Santana’s sentence on Count 4. We have considered all of Defendant-Appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED. 1 . The standard for aiding and abetting a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) is currently unsettled among the federal circuits. Compare, e.g., United States v. Wiseman, 172 F.3d 1196, 1217 (10th Cir.1999), and United States v. Harrington, 108 F.3d 1460, 1471 (D.C.Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>), with, e.g., Medina, 32 F.3d at 45 (requiring
holding there was no error in giving an instruction on aiding and abetting when defendant was not charged with aiding and abetting because ajiders and abettors  are chargeable directly as principals holding that no active facilitation of the principals use of the firearm is necessary for an aiding and abetting conviction under  924c recognizing aiding and abetting conversion recognizing both aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting conversion holding that to be guilty of aiding and abetting under  924c the defendant must have directly facilitated or encouraged use of the firearm mere presence at the scene of the crime and knowledge that the crime is being committed is not enough