## United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 22

- 2251

___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Maricus Davon Futrell, also known as Rukus
Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________
Submitted: January 13, 2023 Filed: March 27, 2023 [Unpub lished]

____________ Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________
PER CURIAM.

Maricus D. Futrell pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 400 grams of fentanyl
, in violation of 21 U .S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A). The district court 1 sentenced him to 132 months

1 The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.-2- in prison. He appeals his sentence. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Futrell argues the district court erred in applying a two

- le vel enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a dangerous firearm. This court reviews findings of fact for clear error and application of the guidelines de novo

. See United States v. Woods , 670 F.3d 883, 886 (8th Cir. 2012)

.
The government bears the burden of proving a sentencing enhancement. See United States v. Peroceski , 520 F.3d 886, 889 (8th Cir. 2008). The two

- level enhancement was proper here 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. 11

. See Peroceski , 520 F.3d at 88 7 (holding the government must prove “the weapon was present and that it is at least probable that the weapon was connected with the offense”). This is a “ low bar. ” United States v. Garcia , 703 F.3d 471, 476 (8th Cir. 2013)

. To a show a “connection,” the government need not show that the defendant used or touched the weapon

. See Peroceski , 520 F.3d at 889.

Futrell stipulated that: (1) he was a “runner” in two drug

- trafficking conspiracies ; (2) all runners in one of the conspiracies carried handguns or assault rifles; (3) investigators found him in the bedroom of his girlfriend, a coconspirator ; (4) the girlfriend’s house facilitated activities of the drug

- trafficking conspiracy; and (5) in the bedroom investigators found over $9,000 and a loaded semi

- automatic pistol. These facts are sufficient to support t he district court’s finding that it was not clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the drug offense. See United States v. Hernandez , 440 F ed . Appx

. 522, 523 (8th Cir. 2011) ( holding that it was not clearly improbable that an unloaded gun hidden in an attic above defendant’s garage and wrapped in a bandana and electrical tape was connected with defendant’s drug offense); United States v. Dunning , 1997 WL 415241, at *1 (8th Cir. Jul. 25
, 1997) (finding no clear error in the district court’s determination that it was not clearly improbable that a revolver found in a closet with the drugs and cash was-3- connected with the offense even though defendant professed a lack of knowledge as to its presence)

. The court did not err in applying the enhancement.

* * * * * * * *

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________