Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): court to apply the enhancement. United States v. Hall, 46 F.3d 62, 63-64 (11th Cir.1995) (per curiam). Evidence that a defendant used or could have used a firearm to protect his criminal activity is sufficient to show a connection between the firearm and the offense, and will thus satisfy the government’s burden under § 2Dl.l(b)(l). See United States v. Carillo-Ayala, 713 F.3d 82, 91-92, 94-95 (11th Cir.2013) (“While other facts, such as whether the firearm is loaded, or inside a locked container, might be relevant to negate a connection, there is a strong presumption that a defendant aware of the weapon’s presence will think of using it if his illegal activities are threatened. The firearm’s 'potential use is critical.”); United States v. Hansley, 54 F.3d 709, 715-16 (11th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). With respect to whether a defendant has 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the government was required to prove that the defendant lacked a license to possess a firearm but not that the defendant possessed the firearm for any duration of time (B) holding that the  2d11b1 enhancement was proper where a firearm and drugrelated items were found in the defendants residence where he had also engaged in conspiratorial conversations (C) holding that defendants personal items and sworn declaration and police officers testimony that the defendant had stayed in a house the night before are insufficient to establish defendants expectation of privacy (D) holding that government met its burden with evidence that agents found a firearm and other drugrelated items in the defendants house where defendant engaged in conspiratorial conversations (E) holding that the fortress theory applied where a firearm and marijuana were found on a night stand and cocaine was found in the same room as defendant had easy access to the firearm
Output (English): holding that defendants personal items and sworn declaration and police officers testimony that the defendant had stayed in a house the night before are insufficient to establish defendants expectation of privacy