does not really concern the sufficiency of the evidence. But as Perez correctly responds, “A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence always requires a court to compare the Government’s proof against the statutory elements, properly understood.” It is not unusual for a court to review sufficiency challenges that turn on the meaning of a statutory term. See, e.g., Cuellar v. United States, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 1994, 2002-03, 170 L.Ed.2d 942 (2008) (concluding that evidence that petitioner concealed money during transportation was insufficient to sustain his conviction under the federal money laundering statute, because the language of the statute cannot be satisfied by “merely hiding funds”); Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 142-43, 150-51, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995) (<HOLDING>). As to the standard of review, the Government
holding that the use prong of  924c1 requires the active employment of a firearm holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the defendants convictions for using a firearm in violation of 18 usc  924c1 only because the word use properly construed did not embrace mere possession of a firearm but rather required active employment of a weapon 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 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