and abetting the commission of the Count 3 charge. See Gutierrez, 745 F.3d at 471. Aiding and abetting, however, was not the only theory under which the jury was permitted to find Rodriguez guilty of Count 3. The court instructed the jury as to Pinkerton liability, and the government, in discussing the § 924(c) charge in closing, appeared to rest solely on Pinkerton liability. The evidence discussed above does make it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have convicted Rodriguez on the basis that it was reasonably foreseeable to him that a co-conspirator would have a gun. Therefore, the court’s instructional error was harmless. See Gutierrez, 745 F.3d at 471; see also Dean v. United States, 556 U.S. 568, 572-74, 129 S.Ct. 1849, 1858-54, 173 L.Ed.2d 785 (2009) (<HOLDING>). Applying plain-error review, we affirm
holding that those crimes with a mens rea of negligence or recklessness do not trigger the enhanced penalties mandated by the acca holding that a mens rea of unlawfully in the indictment was sufficient because the indictment referenced the applicable statute which required a reckless mens rea holding that the enhanced minimum sentence for discharging a firearm requires no additional mens rea specific to the firing of the gun holding that the legislature intended code  1823081b to create strict criminal liability subject to certain specific exceptions for any person possessing a firearm on school property thus no instruction on the element of mens rea required holding that under california law section 28002 requires a reckless mens rea