According to the link to the opinion <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;h2o.law.harvard.edu&#x2F;collages&#x2F;9733" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;h2o.law.harvard.edu&#x2F;collages&#x2F;9733</a> found in this comment <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=11070928" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=11070928</a> , the gun summary appears to be the following:<p>&quot;[Count #1:] ... observed Mr. Angelos&#x27; Glock pistol by the center console of his car. [Count #2:] .... Mr. Angelos lifted his pant leg to show him the Glock in an ankle holster.... [Count #3:] The search revealed a briefcase which contained ... a handgun .... also recovered two other guns in a locked safe, one of which was confirmed as stolen. .... two more guns ...&quot;<p>In short, five guns were found under Angelos&#x27;s control.  The two possessed during transactions are perhaps the same, but may or may not be one of the three found in his home.  I believe the sentence &quot;Officers later searched his home and found a gun.&quot; from the original article is misleading; officers found three.<p>In any case, the government charged Angelos with five §924(c) counts: two counts for the one during transactions, one count for the three guns found at his home, and two more counts for the two guns found at his girlfriend&#x27;s.  The jury found him not guilty of the last two counts.