United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit


No. 18-2197

                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Appellee,

                               v.

  REGINALD MCBRIDE, a/k/a Kweasia McBride, a/k/a Reggie McBride,
 a/k/a Reginald Washington, a/k/a Benjamin McBride, a/k/a Manney
   McBride, a/k/a Anthony Walker, a/k/a Ben McBride, a/k/a John
                         Doe, a/k/a Sunny,

                      Defendant, Appellant.


          APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

        [Hon. John A. Woodcock, Jr., U.S. District Judge]


                             Before

                  Torruella, Lynch, and Barron,
                         Circuit Judges.


     Elizabeth A. Latif and Law Offices of Elizabeth Latif, PLLC
on brief for appellant.
     Benjamin M. Block, Assistant United States Attorney, and
Halsey B. Frank, United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.


                          June 11, 2020
              LYNCH, Circuit Judge.      After a three-day trial, a jury

convicted Reginald McBride of (1) possession of a firearm by a

prohibited      person,   in    violation      of   

(g)(1);

(2) possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of

(a)(1); and (3) carrying and using a firearm during

and in relation to, and possessing the firearm in furtherance of,

a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 

(c).                  In

the course of determining McBride's guilt on Count Three, the jury

was   asked    one   special    interrogatory       and   determined   that   the

government had not proven that the firearm was "discharged."

              McBride challenges his conviction on Count Three on two

grounds.      He argues that the indictment was constructively amended

in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause because of

the admission of evidence, the government's closing argument, and

the jury instructions.         He further argues that the jury's verdict

on    Count    Three   and     the   special    interrogatory      answer     were

irreconcilably inconsistent.          We affirm.

                                       I.

              McBride only challenges his conviction on Count Three.

We recount the relevant facts in the light most favorable to the

verdict.      United States v. Leoner-Aguirre, 

, 313 (1st

Cir. 2019).1


      1  As to Counts One and Two, McBride contested at trial
that he had previously been convicted of a felony and that the

                                      - 2 -
A.   Facts

             On June 26, 2016, Samantha Tupper, a friend of McBride,

drove a white Ford Taurus to where McBride had been staying with

a friend in Augusta, Maine.      McBride testified that Tupper had

called him and said she needed to talk to him about something.

McBride packed up his belongings and when Tupper arrived, he put

his bags into the trunk of the car.      The two drove around Augusta

and Tupper told McBride that some other individuals had informed

her that she owed them money.

             McBride further testified that he and Tupper drove to a

convenience store and picked up two females, who sat in the

backseat. One of the women began to physically attack Tupper while

Tupper was driving and demanded that Tupper pay her the money that

she owed.     Tupper stopped the car at the Walmart in Augusta and

continued arguing with the woman.        At various points during the

dispute, Tupper, McBride, and both female passengers got out of

the vehicle in the Walmart parking lot.

             Another man approached the group in a silver Volkswagen

and got out of the vehicle.    McBride testified that the other man

pulled out a gun.      McBride further testified that he drew the




substance found in his possession was heroin.        He does not
challenge