to the drugs.”); Tr. at 528-29 (government rebuttal at closing) (“And this is not a gun you just keep around the house. It’s not a hunting rifle. This is a sawed-off shotgun. And it’s kept four to five feet away from where you keep your stash of drugs hidden in the ceiling area.”); Tr. at 529 (“Drug dealing is going on in that house. That’s where he’s cooking his crack. People are coming to the front door. You want something there. It’s [the shotgun] furthering his business. Because it gives him the sense of security he needs to keep doing business.”). These admonitions, which were given close in time to the jury instructions, substantially mitigate any danger flowing from the lack of elaboration in the Count VI instructions. See United States v. Santos, 932 F.2d 244, 252 (3d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Finally, an instructive line of cases holds
holding that the phrase or ganic diseases of the nervous system contained in 38 usc  11013 was ambiguous because the statute did not define the phrase recognizing that where the marks share a word or phrase but are otherwise different the plaintiff is not pmmitted to claim a right to all variant of the phrase in a specific market recognizing that the court must give meaning to all the words in the claims holding that a phrase should be interpreted consistent with the context of the statute in which it is contained holding that the possibility of a mistaken understanding of the phrase preponderance of the evidence on the part of the jury is too remote to constitute plain error when counsel gave the jury an accurate explanation of the legal meaning of the phrase in his closing argument and that meaning is consistent with the common understanding of the words in the phrase