we would disagree to the extent if we look at the chill teletype of the circumstances what happened in the beginning of the hearing the government argues as did the probation officer that the items that were found were indicative of drug trafficking and the district court accepts that in the beginning she said it's my time to rule and those are clearly related to the four point stand at that point defense counsel makes his argument that these are common items that are found in a kitchen that they could be innocuous that they don't have anything to do with drug trafficking and the district court continues and she said eighteen active phones a single edged razor usually you don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that this is  cocaine to cut power power then you have the colander the beacon so that the tape individually marked the plot bags and she said everything in itself can be innocent but taking it together it's indicative of more than near possession then she goes on to state after looking at the guidelines she goes on to to again explain these items and she said that they're found together in a bedroom of this defendant and taking into consideration the amount of the items the color coded zip locks the marijuana the one edge that they're more indicative of a commission of a state or federal offense at that point she talks about the possession of paraphernalia and then she says given the quantity and the type of the items those are indicative and related to which will discuss why that is important in a moment to another offense after the discussion of other enhancements that are not relevant to the appeal and after calculating the guideline range to include this for point and handsome and the district court states again in addition to that we have the seizure of the cell phones of black suitcase with  paraphernalia she discusses the items again and she calls them drug manufacturing materials items that are used to pack and set for distribution not hotter than here is the phrase at issue i'm not making entered you know arguing that no we don't argue that the court clearly erred but other case law said it recently i believe and i can add twenty j because i think it was last week that the possession even if it was someone else that w drug trafficking it upheld this same it said that if it was somebody else's drug trafficking materials that this and handsome it would still be warranted but moving on from that and get into the possession of paraphernalia again that is another avenue of a facility you're ok she courts and yet has that she stated on three different times in the record which is are noted in our brief that the gun was clearly related to the possession of the paraphernalia now that word is about most importance here because the guidelines says that you don't need a firearm is to facilitate or have the potential to facilitate the other drug the other offense and it finds that that facilitation is presumed if you have drug trafficking used for distribution and guns and used for distribution any sort of gun that has to deal with distribution even though the felony here if we say that it's paraphernalia the court made it explicit finding that this paraphernalia is not for the personal consumption and giving it's quantity in its type she made the finding that this paraphernalia is used for distribution then maybe she quite frankly the most rational interpretation of this record is split the baby ok you don't want to say that it's drug trafficking i'm not going to say that you're a drug trafficking but we have drug trafficking paraphernalia and i find that this gun is related to and that statement related to was about most importance because when we look at what the sentencing commission did with the amendment with explaining that facilitation is presumed where you have drug trafficking or burglary is it said that that's presumed you don't need to make that finding because of these two however in this case she went t step further and she said it is related and grove laid it the commission used related in one hundred and twenty four c when explaining what how they want to talk about this connection and they said relating means to facilitate or have the potential to facilitate so when the district court in this instance said that i find that the possession of these guns were in relation to that felony the possession of distribution of paraphernalia that is for distribution that's used to package and set narcotics for the market not for personal use she checked that box so not only did she explain which felony it was and she also made that connection s wasn't relying on the presumption of drug trafficking because she went ahead and stated that they're clearly related everything points to the commission of a related offense and the weapons were possessed in relation to that offense and that is on the agenda page forty  at one point the court does mention just mere possession but then she continues just to discuss the possession of paraphernalia and prior to giving that explanation she discusses the paraphernalia that would be the most obvious one notwithstanding in our brief we know that that's an open question in the circuit and point this court to three other circuits with help that that's fine as long as there's relation to finding that it cannot be presumed like it is in the case of burglary earner in the case of the truck if the court has no further questions the government pressed on its brief thank you it was a single small body of my you wanna there's no controversy about the insignificant amount of drugs that was found in this case it was found inside of a