order to convict on both counts, the government had to establish that Clay did in fact brandish a firearm. Eyewitness testimony established that the carjacker used a silver semi-automatic handgun during the incident. Another witness, Abernathy, testified that she saw Clay with a semi-automatic handgun either the day of or the day before the carjacking. The government argues that the evidence of the uncharged theft was necessary to complete the story of the offense and explain how Clay obtained the handgun. This argument is logically flawed. There is no evidence that firmly establishes a relationship between the carjacking and the theft. The gun stolen from Moser’s car was never recovered, and nothing confirms that stolen weapon was the gun Abernathy saw with Clay, or th 0th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). In other words, there was a confirmed link
holding that prior possession of a firearm is admissible to show knowledge in a prosecution for knowingly possessing a similar weapon holding alford plea admissible in prosecution for felon in possession of firearm holding that in a prosecution for possession of an unregistered firearm evidence of an armed robbery committed with the firearm was admissible 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 exception did not apply to uncharged federal offense of unlawful possession of unregistered firearm even though defendant already had pending state charge of armed robbery involving the same weapon