or by threats of force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Berardi, 675 F.2d at 897 n. 3. 4 . Because the district court instructed the jury that it was required to unanimously agree as to which particular firearm Bu-chmeier acquired or received with regard to each count, we need not reach the issue of whether it would have been sufficient for the juiy to have simply agreed that Buchmeier possessed at least one of the firearms listed in each count without agreeing which particular firearm he possessed. See United States v. Verrecchia, 196 F.3d 294, 298-301 (1st Cir. 1999)
holding that without such a showing the government may only charge the defendant with one violation of  922g1  regardless of the actual quantity of firearms involved holding that period of proscription for firearm ownership under section 922g1 was indefinite 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 a criminal defendant convicted by a jury on one count cannot attack that conviction because it was inconsistent with the jurys verdict of acquittal on another count citations omitted holding that because a jury need only agree that a defendant possessed a firearm in order to find a defendant guilty of violating  922g1 a unanimity instruction was not required where defendant was charged with one count of violating  922g1 and multiple firearms were listed in that count