applied in cases concerning the erroneous admission of evidence under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, also applied to infringement of the jury’s factfinding role under the Sixth Amendment. Neder, 527 U.S. at 18, 119 S.Ct. 1827. The Court explained that a court, in typical appellate-court fashion, asks whether the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the omitted element. If the answer to that question is “no,” holding the error harmless does not “reflec[t] a denigration of the constitutional rights involved.” Rose [v. Clark], 478 U.S. [570, 577, 106 S.Ct. 3101, 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986)]. 527 U.S. at 19, 119 S.Ct. 1827. For example, in Neder, the jury instructions omitted the element of materiality, a fact which was improperly found 84) (<HOLDING>). We now turn to the question of harmless error
holding that an enhancement for an express threat of death may not be applied to the sentence for robbery when the threat is related to the use of the firearm and the defendant has a  924c sentence for the same firearm holding that to enhance a sentence because of the defendants use of a firearm the jury must find the defendant guilty of a crime involving a firearm or otherwise specifically find that a firearm was used holding that the government was required to prove that the defendant lacked a license to possess a firearm but not that the defendant possessed the firearm for any duration of time holding that a defendant possessed a firearm in connection with a crime when the firearm was kept in a car across the street from where the defendant was selling drugs holding that to apply the firearm enhancement the firearm need only reflect the context of the defendants possession and the defendants ability to use the firearm to promote the controlled substance offense