drug trafficking activity what is that language appear well if you look in the guideline itself or just the if you go down to the application know that location at eleven a president and then later on it says that present at the scene of a crime that's w present there is both but it's not exactly ok yes so it's it can be viewed is not a high bar it's very regards the firearm has to be somewhere at the location or associated with the crime this court is used in connection with shown of the drug packaging material that was taken in pennsylvania from the deliberate act just and that was shown to me looks like a stick wrap of some sort there was a plastic wrap also at the house that was photographed but they were not the same they were not demonstrated to do the same read the record correctly investors were uncertain his his character witness may not have been entirely helpful on that point because the suggestion of the need for the artillery in the armor yourself you yourself mr sorenson indicated that the packaging material did look like the packaging material that was found with the drug in the transaction until january mid january of two thousand and ninety all months later and there was no evidence no proof set forth by the prosecution tracing the firearms back to show that they were actually in the residence at the time when they that's was committed that is the expense of drug paraphernalia was indeed drug paraphernalia then in connection with this very broad and hence meant the question is did he possess he then mark possess weapons and they must but if i read the politan it's you got to show that the guns were possessed but you don't necessarily you you can show you can make a showing it's a permissive for that and i don't think it's a must well i make two points one is that the end firearms here were discovered a month later there was nothing to show that they were actually present at the best but two and maybe connection was clearly improbable i think that was the crux of her article that that's what she was are about why these were not connected to it and that is why would you might want to take a look at that but that seems like the best counsel was focused on the st step of the analysis whether and here it was almost an impossible it would be used because of the nature of the threats and that was delivery of methamphetamines controlled substances through the mail this was an a tyrolese promote operation at least with respect to fire in this case and mr connected in some form or fashion satisfy the st problem were they were not able to be used whatsoever at all during the offense itself because mr denmark had no association with them and it will to do it while it was post office meaning the tests of course at that point in the firearms in firearm like item on here was an assault rifle body armor deafened that inform the inquiry as to whether or not items were possessed in connection test and he simply could not do it here because the fire wasn't as a band it elegies people it was interacting with were in the post office when he did not have believed and there but that doesn't really answer my question my question is and that nature or whether he was operating in some other conspiracy or drugged distributions whether they were linked to whether it's clearly improbable that this particular answer was going to be committed with the use of firearms and again the manner in which this particular taught the st part of that the possession itself could be shown with temporal and spatial relationship here we have both a temporal relationship it's within only one month there's no evidence that he stopped his drug trafficking in fact we have just the opposite we have the drug trafficking materials in the home at the time of the search warrant indicating that he did not stop and we have no evidence that it was recent acquiring the firearms or recent purchase of the firearms and i think there's other evidence that suggest that as well such as the number of firearms where they're stored the multiple locations the nine hundred and ninety rounds of ammunition getting to this nd course and the spatial relationship whether the district court correctly interpreted the guidelines as to what is possession well i think there's two parts that your honor i think st you get to the clear air is a factual that the court made terminations that there was a basis and there certainly deference to the district court did the facts in this case regarding the possession the application certainly of the guidelines would be a question that would be under a different standard that would be if what is possession under the guidelines would seem to be a matter of law whether it was clearly improbable that would seem to be a factual determination interpretation of the guidelines the application of the guidelines is a plenary and that is a legal matter ok end of it clearly improbable is a factual matter i believe that's all that is a factual matter but i believe that  matters well the court has to make a determination whether or not there's possession and that is what i got i got you but what i'm saying is what is possession when you interpret it in other words what is that what is the parameters of possession in order to make your factual determination the what are the parameters of possession would seem to be a legal matter correct what would determine that yes i would have to revert enough on that let's let's get down to the so you're on t promulgated by this court established in fact that there's there's no clear probability looking st to the type of weapons that we have here we have an assault rifle a shotgun we have two pistols  he claims he never shot one of them they're not hunting rifles there are items that could be readily used as a tool of the trade for drug trafficking next looking at whether or not they're loaded there were seven loaded a r fifty seven loaded magazine six before the a ar fifteen and nineteen millimeter loaded magazine that was actually in the firearm there was not around but there were seven loaded magazines we have nine hundred of marijuana case and that the there's that mission that the defense of marijuana dealers there's just simply no evidence on the record at all to establish that we know for a fact that he's a method fed amine dealer we know for a fact that the methamphetamine that was received in pennsylvania was consistent with the drug paraphernalia packaging at the house we even have the want the testimony during the proceeding was that i want to use the sensibly for wrap around over and over and over around the packaging so that again weighs in favor and then we have the accessibility the two firearms were actually in the safe accessible to the defendant the long rifles were drug trafficking activity up until the date of the search warrant which would have been approximately a month later again the defendant tries to narrow and say well the defendant didn't ship the the items he owned he literally went from the post office and really mailed them that the crime didn't occur at the apartment i think the crime in the evidence establishes here that in fact the negotiations about the drug actually occurred the apartment and that's part of the crime is that explore with you what would be the outer limits of this brought him in smoke if the drug paraphernalia and some transactions relating to the drugs occur in a residence on the east side of town and it's later determined that the defendant has a nother place that he uses as an abode on the west side of town several miles away and the west side of town the boat contains weapons is enhanced one upon it certainly could apply here and if you i would direct the court to look at  but but house well if it's i think that st part of that would have to be does it is it in connection with the offense of the individual story drugs and the guns are near th the drugs certainly that would establish and that would make the connection again it's a toss of a train but i'm looking at note eleven and it says quote the enhancement should be applied if the weapon was present unless it is clearly improbable that that weapon was connected with the offense so if i am in my example the weapon is not present where the drugs or drug paraphernalia are on the east side of town but the weapon is stick with the no the note says quote the enhancement should be applied if the weapon was present and i guess what i'm asking you is present where at some point we have to stop at some point it becomes we it it's too far  point i believe that it's its president in connection with the offense i don't believe that that's limited to the abode in fact tries to oust he says otherwise and it can be actually be another residence if it's president in connection with the offense the guideline actually indicates that it gets possessed the actual present part is a application note that's instructive to the well because it is if possessed i mean if he possessed the gun in california you're telling me somehow that's then you get the enhancement even though that the crime occurred in pennsylvania is that we jokingly absolutely one hundred percent your honor and that's because there's other factors he's negotiating a drug deal he's purchasing his drugs from someone or ten he has drugs from someone the methamphetamine he also has to protect not only the drugs that he's obtaining before his sentence here but also the drug proceeds and that's exactly what ok so tell me how that fits within pennsylvania so tell me how that fits within the four factors in the politan what think if it was just that just a clip excuse me just to clarify we are we in the hypothetical now are we still the drugs are in pennsylvania guns are an elephant well the crime your honor committed he nailed the drugs he had the drugs the methamphetamine i don't think that's in dispute at all that the fact he built those drugs from california to pennsylvania did so i think that that's i think that letter was connected with the drug offense the type of gun involved whether the gun whether the gun was stored near the drugs or drug paraphernalia were now three thousand miles away and whether the gun was accessible obviously not what believe that i believe otherwise your honor i think that the guy in california success of all with respect to somebody else and pennsylvania residents well i think it relates to the crime of him being a and you've got it you've got to concede that if you're going to go to the nth degree then you're inviting us to somehow cut off well as a car as a court talk about the facts or the hypothetical i guess i'm done with the hypothetical i mean the facts  just trying to i'm trying to give you the actual the complement of becoming the judge here and showing us when this works and when it doesn't work for future cases well i think if in your hypothetical if it had been mailed and he's not a drug dealer any other transaction and it's mail from the bottom perhaps that hypothetical perhaps that wouldn't apply but looking at the facts in this case what we know we met he mailed it from his home he had a minimum negotiated th drug transactions at his home at a minimum he has drug packaging material that is consistent with the method found to be that was sent to pennsylvania and we have the fact that he's prohibited for possessing firearms none of the firearms were lawfully registered to him the types of firearms the accessibility of those firearms the fact that they're stored near paraphernalia the fact that they're loaded such as the pistol loaded with a magazine the seven loaded  fifteen the body armor all those are indicative that it's connected to the offense and all four of those factors that's been presented by the court and the pots and all four way in favor of the united states in terms that of establishing and the defendant failing to status a clear improbability that they're related to the offense certainly the judge analyzed this she actually took a ten minute break to analyze the  she was aware of the standards she ruled on the entire argument and i think inherent and implicit in that determination was her finding that it was there is no showing of a clear improbability under and there must be something that must be present and the only reasonable way to read that into repossession context is that it has to be temporarily specially can join with firearm in some sense on the same property nearby and that need show that there is guns possessed then you have to show that the burns on the front of the show is clearly improbable that they were not possessed in connection with the the drug offense or the  it was raised the probation officer recognized that was a live issue and it was one that would be litigated so i think we all thought we happen situation here in which we have two distinct legal issues one with respect to session one with respect to clear improbability i we will take the case under advisement