Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the sentencing court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Cherry, 572 F.3d 829, 831 (10th Cir.2009). 1. Firearm Enhancement Section 2Dl.l(b)(l) of the Guidelines provides for a two-level enhancement “[i]f a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed.” The Application Notes explain that “[t]he enhancement should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, cmt. n.3; see also United States v. Heckard, 238 F.3d 1222, 1233 (10th Cir.2001). The enhancement applies when a co-defendant possessed a firearm, so long as possession was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant. See United States v. Underwood, 938 F.2d 1086, 1090 (10th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). But see United States v. Goddard, 929 F.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an alien may be held in confinement until it has been determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future (B) recognizing innocent possession defense to a charge of criminal weapons possession (C) holding that under  1b13a1b and 2d11b1 a defendant may be held accountable for reasonably foreseeable weapons possession by a codefendant (D) holding that under  lb13alb and 2d 11b1 a defendant may be held accountable for reasonably foreseeable weapons possession by a codefendant (E) recognizing that a manufacturer may be held strictly liable for subsequent changes to an otherwise safe product where such alterations are reasonably foreseeable
Output (English): holding that under  1b13a1b and 2d11b1 a defendant may be held accountable for reasonably foreseeable weapons possession by a codefendant