The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Alerta, 96 F.3d 1230 (9th Cir. 1996):
4 Our conclusion is consistent with (but not compelled by) the fact that section 924(c)(1) defines a free-standing substantive crime, and is not merely a sentencing enhancement provision. See United States v. Anderson, 59 F.3d 1323, 1326 (D.C.Cir.) (en banc) (holding that predicate drug offense is an element of a section 924(c)(1) crime), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 542, 133 L.Ed.2d 445 (1995). A section 924(c)(1) conviction can stand on its own even if a defendant is not charged with the underlying drug offense. Id.
5 The instruction given stated that the government must prove:
First, the defendant knowingly possessed methamphetamine.
Second, the defendant possessed it with the intent to deliver it to another person.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.