When Congress enacted and amended 18 U.S.C. Section 924(G)(1)

QUESTION PRESENTED When Congress enacted and amended 18 U.S.C. Section 924(G)(1) (A) periodically, did Congress give federal criminal courts discretion to make their own findings. of guilty when accepting a Rule (11) Plea Colloquy factual basis without following Gongressional statutory construction that governs 18 U.S.C. Section 924(C)(1) (A)? Petitioner's federal information, Count II; Garrying a firearm in the commission of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 924(C)(1)(A). Government's elements to Count II; Change of Plea hearing, page 19, lines 9-14. The elements of Count 2 are: First, the defendant committed a drug trafficking crime charged in Count 3 of the information. Second, the defendant knowingly carried and possessed a firearm. And Third, the defendant carried the firearm in relation to and possessed the firearm in furtherance of the drug trafficking crime. Change of Plea hearing, page 19, lines 9-14 and page 20, lines 513, the Court Factual Basis. The Court, All right, very good. I looked into that, obviously, ‘prior to coming in here today and found a number of cases that deal with the presence of a firearm-or the use or carrying of a firearm, rather, in connection with a drug trafficking offense and that the furtherance prong, in furtherance prong, was satisfied by the sale. I just wanted to make sure there was no disagreement going forward. Mr. Henderson: Yes Your Honor. I. Sentencing Hearing, page two, lines 34-25 and page three, lines 1-2. Count 2 of the information charging you with: Carrying a firearm in the commission of a drug trafficking offense in violation of Title 18, United States Code. Section 924(C); Petitioner'’Mingo's question presented specifically address the government.'s oral pronoucements describing the elements of how I, the petitioner committed Count 2, 18 U.S.C. Section 924(C)(1)(A), (captioned) Carrying a firearm in the commission of a drug traf+> ficking offense. Please Note: the government used "and" not “or' under Count 2 description of the elements for the Court to establish a guilty plea factual basis, also, the Rule 11(f£) factual basis for a guilty plea must be precise enough and sufficiently specific to show that the accused conduct on the occasion involved was within the ambit of that defined as criminal. Before a guilty plea can be validly accepted, the district court must insure that the conduct admitted by the accused constitutes the offense charged in the information. This factual basis must appear on the record. The purpose behind such a requirement is to protect a defendant who may plead voluntarily with an understanding of the nature of the charge but without realizing that his conduct does not actually fall within the definition of the crime charged. McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 467, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed. 418 (1969); United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58, 122 S.Ct. 1043, 152 L.Ed. 2d 90 (2002). Il. The text of Section 924(C) belies the view that the statute simply identifies alternative means for committing a single offense. The two prongs of the statute are separated by the disjuntive "or" which, according to the precepts of statutory construction, suggests the separate prongs must have different meanings. Court decisions require the government, under 18 U.S.C. Section 924(C), to present different proof to show using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime from that required to show possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. ) The district court when accepting the factual basis confused the elements of the two offense alternative means criminalized by 18 U.S.C. Section 924(C) by mismatching elements of the statutory prongs. Irregardless of the fact that petitioner, Mingo, entered into a plea agreement; this does not mean petitioner is entitled to less due process. Mingo's Rule 11 plea agreement was problematic because the government instructed it's elements of Section 924