In what circumstances will a jury be instructed to find that a firearm must have been in relation to the underlying crime?

In United States v. Perez, 989 F.2d 1111 (9th Cir.1993), we upheld instructions almost identical to those given here. In Perez, the district court instructed the jury that "[t]he term 'relation to' ... requires a causal connection between the narcotics offense and the firearm," but refused to give additional language stating that the statute " 'requires more than mere possession of a firearm.' " Id. at 1114-15. We upheld the instructions as a correct statement of the law. Id. at 1115. In this case, the instruction that the gun must have "been related to, or played some role in the underlying crime " defines "in relation to" at least as well as the "causal connection" instruction in Perez. Thus, we hold that the district court's instruction is a fair and accurate statement of the law and that the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant the supplemental instruction.

The convictions are AFFIRMED.