an avowed drug trafficker or throwing up its hands and convicting after its repeated requests of the court for clarification of the causation requirement were rebuffed. Cf. supra n. 3. In the face of the court’s serial refusals to provide the help the jury was desperately seeking, few laypersons would be willing to say “not proven” and return a verdict in favor of the drug dealer. III. For the foregoing -reasons, I would vacate the judgment of conviction under § 841(b)(1)(C) and remand with instructions. that Alvarado either (1) be accorded a new trial or (2) be resentenced without a new trial on the lesser included §. 841(a)(1) distribution offense. Cf. United States v. Hickman, 626 F.3d 756, 760 (4th Cir.2010); see also United States v. Blue, 808 F.3d 226, 237 (4th Cir.2015) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Ford, 750 F.3d 952 (8th
holding that the greater offense is  by definition the same for purposes of double jeopardy as any lesser offense included in it holding that a lesser crime cannot be a lesser included offense of a greater crime if the lesser crime contains an essential element not included in the greater crime holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense recognizing that it is within  our power to direct entry of judgment on a lesser included offense when vacating a greater offense if the commission of the lesser offense can be established from facts that the jury actually found citations omitted holding that an offense is factually lesser included if the charging instrument alleges that the means used to commit the crime charged include all of the elements of the alleged lesser included offense