United States of America v. Keenan Price

*The Honorable Thomas M. Reavley, United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit,
sitting by designation.
PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-2968
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
KEENAN PRICE,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 03-cv-00147)
District Judge: Honorable William H. Yohn, Jr.
Argued June 15, 2006
Before: FISHER, CHAGARES and REAVLEY, * Circuit Judges.
ORDER AMENDING OPINION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the opinion in the above case, filed June 30,
2006, be amended as follows:
Page 2, footnote 1, line 3, which read:
18 U.S.C. § 922(c) (gun possession in furtherance); . . .
shall read:
18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (gun possession in furtherance); . . .

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Page 2, first paragraph, second sentence, which read:
Price raises three issues: first, that the District Court
improperly allowed two police officers to present hearsay
testimony about the contents of the radio report to which they
responded; second, that the District Court improperly allowed
the government’s expert witness to testify about Price’s
mental state; and third, that the District Court improperly
instructed the jury on the meaning of “in furtherance” in 18
U.S.C. § 922(c).
shall read:
Price raises three issues: first, that the District Court
improperly allowed two police officers to present hearsay
testimony about the contents of the radio report to which they
responded; second, that the District Court improperly allowed
the government’s expert witness to testify about Price’s
mental state; and third, that the District Court improperly
instructed the jury on the meaning of “in furtherance” in 18
U.S.C. § 924(c).
Page 5, last paragraph, first sentence, which read:
Finally, the District Court instructed the jury on the meaning
of “in furtherance” in § 922(c).
shall read:
Finally, the District Court instructed the jury on the meaning
of “in furtherance” in § 924(c).
Page 24, Part C, first paragraph, first sentence, which read:
Price argues, finally, that the jury instructions failed to define
the “in furtherance” component of § 922(c), and thus allowed
the jury to infer that mere possession of a gun while
committing a crime is sufficient for conviction.
shall read:
Price argues, finally, that the jury instructions failed to define
the “in furtherance” component of § 924(c), and thus allowed
the jury to infer that mere possession of a gun while
committing a crime is sufficient for conviction.
Page 24, Part C, second paragraph, last sentence, which read:

-- 2 of 3 --

3
By specifying that the gun must have “furthered” or been
“integral” to the underlying crime, the instruction adequately
conveyed that possession of a gun while committing a crime
is not, in itself, enough for conviction under § 922(c).
shall read:
By specifying that the gun must have “furthered” or been
“integral” to the underlying crime, the instruction adequately
conveyed that possession of a gun while committing a crime
is not, in itself, enough for conviction under § 924(c).
By the Court,
/s/ D. Michael Fisher
Circuit Judge
Dated: August 28, 2006
CRG/cc: Paul J. Hetznecker, Esq.
Joseph F. Minni, Esq.

-- 3 of 3 --