Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): felony offense, the government had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the firearm aided the felonious conduct (internal quotation marks omitted)). This circuit has not yet interpreted U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) to determine at what point a defendant would know or have reason to believe that the transferee intended to use the transferred firearms unlawfully. But cases interpreting the pri- or version of § 2K2.1(b)(5), which required that the defendant have reason to believe that the firearms “would be used or possessed in connection with another felony offense,” support the district court’s application of the current version of § 2K2.1(b)(5) in the present case. See United States v. Cummings, No. 93-2037, 1994 WL 91825, at *2 (6th Cir. Mar. 22, 1994) (unpublished opinion) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Cutler, 36 F.3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the district court eired in applying the firearm enhancement where the government presented no evidence that the defendant possessed the gun or knew that the gun was located in the bottom of his codefendants backpack (B) holding that evidence of the defendants connection to the guns suggests possession of the drugs found next to the guns (C) holding a consent voluntary when a defendant who had been warned of his rights and knew police were investigating murders turned his gun over to a policeman who suggested that he could sell the gun for the defendant (D) holding that the application of  2k21b5 was appropriate where the volume of cummings gun sales was significant handguns constituted the largest proportion of the weapons sold cummings knew his customers were criminals and his customers knew the guns were stolen (E) holding that the defendant knew of his accomplices gun and benefitted from its presence for protection
Output (English): holding that the defendant knew of his accomplices gun and benefitted from its presence for protection