gun used during the carjacking. Without confirmation that the gun is the same, the car theft is neither a prelude to the charged offense, nor probative of it. It does not arise from the same events as the carjacking; in fact, it is a completely separate and distinct offense that is not essential for providing a “coherent and intelligible description of the charged offense.” McCormick on Evidence § 190 (6th ed.2006). The government relies on two cases in which evidence of prior acts involving a gun were admitted pursuant to the res gestae exception to show that the defendant had access to a gun in the charged offense. In both of these cases, there was no dispute that the defendant or the weapon were the same. See United States v. Brown, 22 Fed.Appx. 102, 103 (4th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Mitchell, 613 F.2d 779, 782
holding that in a prosecution for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon defendants assault with the firearm the evening before the charged offense was necessary to complete the story and prove that brown possessed the gun holding alford plea admissible in prosecution for felon in possession of firearm holding that dual convictions of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon violated double jeopardy 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 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