The Honor able John R

. Adams, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Ohio, sitti ng by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 07a0609n.06 Filed: August 21, 2007 No. 06-5296 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, P laintif f-App ellee,

v. L aPEDRO FI

NL EY, Defendan t-Appellant.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E WE STE RN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE O P I N I O N

Before: M OORE, COOK, Circ uit Jud ges; and ADAMS, District Judge. * KA REN NELSO N MOORE, Circ uit Jud ge. L aPedro F inley appea ls the district court’s den i al o f hi s motion t o suppress and its application of a two-point enha nceme nt for possession of a dang erous we apon. F or the re asons desc ribed be low, we AF F IRM the district court’s judg ment in a ll r e sp e c ts. I. BACKG ROUND A. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound I n late 2004, Of

fice rs Har old Tellez and Dea n Fitzge rald wer e assig ned to the Metro Ga ng Un it i n M e mph is. B e c a us e of pr e vio us c omp la int s o f g ang and dr uga c tiv ity

in t he Sou the a st2

Precinc t, Tellez and his partner (Off icer Aver y ) we re patrolling the are a in an unmarked car on the eveningof De cembe r 21, 2004. Off icer Fitzge rald rode in a sepa rate car . Fitzge rald saw

a “g roup of black males loitering around in a y ard and on the stree t are a in the middle of a ra instorm.” J oint Appendix (“J.A.”) at 99 (Suppress i on Hr’gTr., F itz g era ld Test. at 53:23-25). Be cause the weather wa s cold and unplea sant, Fitzge rald thoug ht this gathe ring seeme d unusual, so he conta cted Te llez and Avery to report the a ddress wher e the g roup of men c ong reg ated and proc eede d to pass by

the g roup. 1. Of fi cer s’ Initial Contact with F inley Te lle z dr ov e tow a

rd the add res s. As he and Av e ry (w ho wa s in

the pa sse ng e r s e a t) approa ched the location, they noticed a w hite Merc ury

parke d on the street pa

rallel to the c urb, about

seven fee t a

way from the crow d. The car was idle, and its lig hts w ere off. Although the car was ne ar the g roup, Tellez recalled that it was parked away from the curb and may have be en blockingtraff ic. Tellez further

rec ounted, “As we were passing by the t wo occupants in the ca r, they kind of slumped down like they

—they didn’t want to be seen.” J .A. at 77 ( id. at 18:2-4). Te llez thought this behavior was suspicious, so he be g an to turn the car a round af ter he passed the w hite Merc ury . Once the of fi c e rs be g an tu

rn ing , th e oc c up ants op ened th e do or s and g ot o ut o f t

he c ar, “ [w]hi c h r e a lly

arouse [d Tellez and Avery ’s] suspi cion even more.” J .A. at 77-78 ( id. a t 18 :23 -1 9:3 ). At that po int , the o ff i ce rs activate d their ca

r’s police lights, g ot out of the ca r, and or dere d the two men to stop. The men c omplied. Te lle z fr isk e d th e man w ho e xite d th e c ar’ s d ri ve r- sid e do or. A ft e r f

ind ingno we a

po ns , Tellez asked the ma

n for identific ation, which the man sa id was in the ca r. F itz g era ld, who had returne d to the scene and had just finished frisking the g roup of pe ople in the y ard, w alked with theThe Assistant United States Attorney prosec uting the c ase r epre sented to the district cour t 1 t h a t F i t z g e r a l d h a d s o t e s t i f i e d

. T h e J o i n t A p p e n d i x d o e s n o tc o n t a i nan y r e c o r d o f t h i s t e s t i m o n y, no r d oe s it

c on ta in a ny ind ic a tio n th a t F inl e y ’s c ouns e l ob je c te d to the AU SA’ s r e pr e se ntatio ns . 3 man. When they

g ot to the car , the m an fished a Tennessee driver’ s license f rom a c oat in the bac k

s e a t
. T h e l i c e n s e r e v e a l e d t h a th e w a s L a P e dr o F i n l e y. Whil e he wa s at th e c ar w ithF inl e y , F itzg e ra ld sme lle d mar iju ana and sig na le d a s mu c h to Tellez, wh o t h en as k ed Finley for pe rmission to search the car . Finley consente d. Once Tellez leane d down to look inside the car , Finley fled on foot. F itz g era ld preve nted Tellez from cha sing Finley beca use F itz g era ld alrea dy

had F inley ’s I D. Tellez and Fitz g era ld sear ched the car and found a lar g e bagcontaining five bric ks of marijuana and about a

quarte r kilog ram of c ocaine powder

. Offic er A very

told them that he had see n Finley drop something i n t h e y ard a s he fled. A fter

sear ching the y ard, the office rs re trieved a bagcontaining cra ck coc aine. 2. Search of Finley’s Re sidence That nig ht, the office rs lear ned F inley ’s addr ess from one of the people on the sc ene. T hey went to that addre ss hoping to find F inley , who had a bsconded. The y

enter ed the r esidenc e using ke y s r e tr ie ve d f

ro m th e wh ite Me rc ur

y and fo un d se ve ra l g un s (i nc lud ing an AK -4 7) , a pp ro xima te ly 290 g rams of c ocaine , and over 2.3 kilogr ams of marijuana . All of these items we re loc ated in the attic, wher e a twelve- y ear -old boy was hidi ng . Finley ’s g irlfriend, Clar y L ee, w as appa

rently prese nt during this searc h, and afte r the office rs found these items, the y arr ested he r. Off

icer Fitzge rald late r te sti fi e d that the pa c ka g ing of the se dr ug s “ wa s c on sis te nt w iththe pa c ka g ingof the mari jua na ” in Finley ’s ca

r. J.A. at 143 (Detention Hr’ g Tr. at 20:4-10)

. 14

3. Interr ogation of

F inley On Dec ember

29, 2004, the United States District Court fo r t he Western District of Te nn e sse e iss ue d a

c ri min a l c omp la int

a g a ins t, a nd an a rr e st warr ant fo r, L a Pe dr o F inl e y . T he a rr e st

war rant was executed that day , and Memphis Police office r Roge r Nelson interview ed F inley afte r he wa s taken into custody

. During this int ervie w, Finley acknow ledg ed that he ha d g iven offic ers permission to searc h his car, but denied that the drug s found in the ca r we re his. Additionally , Finley admitted that he ra

n from the of

fice rs, claiming he did so beca use “he ha d about an ounc e of w eed in his pocket and he thought that he had an outstandingjuvenile war rant.” J .A. at 108-09 (Suppression Hr’ g Tr., Ne lson Test. at 72:25-73:7). Reg ardingthe sea rch of the re sidence , Finley admitted that he wa s living there at t he ti me, and also admitted that the guns belong ed to him. He denied that he owned the dr ug s, howeve r, cla iming that they belong ed to his g irlfriend. B. P r oc e dur al B ac kgr ound After Finley was indicted on three counts of possession w ith intent to distribut e a n illega l substance, he moved to suppress “a ll evidence obtained as a result of his unlawful stop, detention and sea rch of his belong ings,” as well as “any

. . . statements where he was clearly in custody at the time he was que stioned by the police.” J .A. at 16-17 (Mot. to S uppress at 3-4). The district court held a suppre ssion he aringon Marc h 30, 2005, and hea rd testimony

from Of fice rs Tellez, Fitzge rald, and Nel s o n . I t also hear d testimony from Jeremy

Robinson and Sally

Robinson, the brother and mother, re spectively , of the other man in Finley ’s ca

r on De cembe r 21, 2 0 0 4

. The district cour t de nie d F inl e y ’s mot ion

in a ll r e sp e c ts. Finley entered a conditional g uilty plea to all thre e counts on Septembe r 26, 2005, but

rese rved his rig ht to appeal the denial of his moti on to suppress. On F ebrua ry 27, 2006, the district5

court he ld a sentenc ing he aring . Recog nizi ng that the Senten ci n g Guidelines we re a dvisory , the district cou rt fo l l o wed the Pre sentenc e Report’ s calc ulation of the applica ble Guideline r ang e, applying a

two-poin t en hance ment under G uideline § 2D1.1(b) (1) f or possession of a da

ng erous

wea pon (name ly , the fire arms found in F inley ’s apa rtment). Finley objected to the district c ourt’s application of the two-leve l enhanc ement, empha siz ing that the fire arms we re not “ rele vant conduc t” bec ause the y wer e found at a differ ent l ocation fr om the c h ar g e d dr

u g s an d w e r e n o t in an y w ay ti e d to th e dr u g s f o u n d in th e c ar . T h e d is tr ic t c ourt reje cted this argument, concludingthat the g overnme nt had shown “that the firea rm was pos[ess]ed and that the de fenda

nt w as involved in the drug business and there was some conne ction.” J.A. at 160 (Sentenc ing Hr’gTr. at 26:20-22) . Be cause the two-leve l enhanc ement applied, F inley was not elig ible for a

safe ty -valve re d u ction under G uideline § 5C1.2(a) . Acc ording ly , the district court sentenc ed F inley

to his mandatory

minimum of six ty months of incar cer ation. Finley timely filed his notice of appe al on Marc h 1, 2006. II. AN AL YSI S A. Jurisdiction The district court had jurisdiction over this criminal ca se under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. W e have jurisdiction over F inley ’s appe al from the district c ourt’s judg ment under 18 U .S.C. § 3742(a). B. Denial of

Motion to Supp ress Evidence 1. Stand ard of Review “W h en re v i ew i n g t h e d en i al o f a m o t i o n t o s u p p re s s , we re v i ew t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s fi n d i n gs of fac t f or clea r err or and its conc lusions of law de novo .” United St ates v. Foster , 376 F.3d 577, 5836

(6th Cir.), cert. de nied , 5 4 3 U

. S. 1 0 1 2 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ( in te r n a l q u o tati o nma

r k s an d c it a ti o no mi tt e d )

. We revie w all evidenc e in the lig ht most favorable to the district court’s de cision. Id. 2. Ana lys is Although the district court ana ly zed the office rs’ intera ction with Finl ey as a traff ic stop under W hren v. U nited States , 517 U.S

. 80 6 ( 19 96 ), we be lie ve that Te rry v . O hio , 392 U.S. 1 (1 9 6 8 ), controls. “ Te rry . . . permits a police of

fice r brief

ly to detain a pe rson or prope rty for investigative purposes if the of fice r has a rea sonable suspicion, suppor ted by articula

ble fac ts, that criminal ac tivity

has occ urre d or is about to occur .” Un ite d Stat es v. D av is , 4 30 F .3 d 3 45 , 3 54 (6 th Cir . 2 00 5)

. To de te rm ine wh e the r an inv e sti g a tor y de te nti on c omp or

ts with th e F ourt

h A me ndme nt,

we a pp ly a tw o- ste p a

na ly sis : F ir st, we de te rm ine wh e the r, un de r the tot a lity of the c ir c ums tanc e s, “‘the re w as a pr oper ba sis for the stop, w hich is judge d by examining whethe r the lawenfor ceme nt officia ls were awa

re of specific and ar

ticulable fa cts which g ave r ise to rea sonable suspicion.’” Id. (q u o t i n g Un ite d S

tat es v . G ar

za , 10 F.3d 1241, 1245 ( 6th Cir. 1993)). I f the a nswer is a ffirmative, we de termine “ ‘whe ther the deg ree of i ntrusion

. . . was re asonably related in scope to the situation

a t ha nd , w h i c h i s j u d g e d b y e xam i n i n g t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e o f

f i c i a l s ’ c o n d

u c t g i v e n th e ir suspicions and the surrounding circ umstances.’ ” Id. (q u o t i n g Ga rza , 10 F .3 d at 12 45 ) ( a lte ratio n in orig inal). The off icer s’ enc ounter with F inley satisfies both prong s of th is test. The totality of the

c ir c ums tanc e s il lus tr a te s th a t th e of fi c e rs ha d r e a so na

ble su sp ic ion

to b e lie ve that c ri min a l a c tiv ity may have be en afoot. The office rs on the task for ce w ere assig ned to an a rea riddled with crime a

nd g angviolence an d had re cently been c alled into the neig hborhood bec ause r esidents wer e

c omp la ini nga

bo ut d ru g de a lin g . T e lle z an d Ave ry a pp ro a c he d the ho us e that F inl e y wa s p ark e d in7

front of beca

use they had re ceive d a ca ll from Fitzge rald re porting a suspicious situation (a g roup of y oung men standing around in fr ont of a house w hile the weather was cold and rainy). As they

near ed the house , they

noticed two men sitti ng in a car parked in front of the hous e with the eng ine

ru nn ing . Wh e n th e se me n s aw that T e lle z an d A ve ry were po li ce of fi c e rs , th e y

slumpe d d ow n in their seats to avoid being seen, and when Tellez turned his car around to a

pproac h them ag ain, they qu ick ly ex it ed th e c ar. Te lle z te sti fi e d th a t hi s e xpe ri e nc e ha s b e e n th a t su c h b e havio r g e ne ra lly indicates that the car ’s occupants wer e try ing to distance the mselves from something inside the ca r. Eac h of these f

acts, on its own, mi gh t n o t b e s ufficie nt to establish reasona ble suspicion. Controlling pre cede nt, howeve r, i ndicates that eac h is rele vant when considering the totality of the circ umstances. See, e .g. , Illinois v. W ardlow , 528 U.S. 119, 124 (2000) (noting that the fa ct that the events took plac e in a hig h-cr ime are a is r eleva nt under the Terry ana ly sis ); United States v. Bailey , 30 2 F .3 d 6 52 , 6 59 (6 th C ir . 2 00 2) (s a me ); Un ite d Sta te s v . Ca ru the rs , 458 F.3d 459, 466 (6th Cir.), cert. de nied , 127 S. Ct. 752 (2006) ( noting that a defe ndant’s fur

tive movements and other evasive be havio r a

re pe rt ine nt in de te rm ini ng wh e the r of fi c e rs ’ s us pic ion

wa s r e a so na

ble ); United States v. Arv izu , 5 3 4 U

. S. 2 6 6 , 2 7 7 ( 2 0 0 2 ) ( o f f ic e r s ma y r e ly o n th e ir e xp e r ie n c e in d e te r mi n in g whether behavior appea rs suspicious). Eac h of these f actor s exi sts here, so we conclude that the offic ers ha d

re a so na ble su sp ic ion

to b e lie ve that c ri min a l a c tiv ity may have be e n a fo ot. Be cause the g overnme nt satisfies the first step of the Terry analy sis, we consider the sec ond. We c on c lud e tha

t th e of fi c e rs did no t vi olate F inl e y ’s F ourt h A me ndme nt ri ghts , as the of fi c e rs ’ int ru sio n u po n F inl e y ’s lib e rt

y wa s n ot unr e a so na

ble g ive n th e c ir c ums tanc e s. We h a ve pr e vio us ly

rec og nized that “upon making the stop, ‘the off icer may ask the d et ai n ee a moderate number of questions to determine his identity and to t ry to obtain information confirmingor dispelling the8

office r’s suspicions.’” United St ates v. Butler , 2 2 3 F. 3 d 3 6 8 , 3 7 4 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) ( qu o t i n g Berke mer

v . M c Car ty , 468 U.S. 420, 439-40 (1984)) . Fur ther, “ [l ]aw enfor ceme nt office rs do not violate the Four th Amendment by

mere ly approa ching an individual on the stree t or in another public place , by

a sk inghim

if he is w ill ingto a

ns we r so me qu e sti on s, or by pu tti ngqu e sti on s to him

if the pe rs on

is willing to listen.” Foster , 376 F.3d at 584 (internal quotation mar ks and alter ations omitt ed). Her e, the office rs’ int rusion upon Finley ’s l iberty was de minimi s and lasted no long er tha n

nece ssary for the of fice rs to investigate their suspicions. After Finley exit ed the c ar a nd the police activate d their ca

r’s blue lig hts , Offic er Te llez ordered F inley to stop. Office r Tellez then approa ched F inley , asked him f or identification, and conducte d a protec tive pat-down to de termine wh e the r F inl e y

wa s arm e d. Whe n F inl e y sa id h is i de nti fi c a tio n w a s in his c ar, Of

fi c e r F itzg e ra ld fo llo we d h im t o th e c ar, wh e re he sme lle d ma ri jua na . O ff ic e r T e lle z as ke d F inl e y

fo r p e rm iss ion

to

sear ch the c ar, w hich Finley g rante d. On c e the se arc h b e g an, F inl e y fl e d. Th e of fi c e rs ne ve r phy sic a lly

de ta ine d F inl e y ; th e ir

on ly restra ints on his freedom of move ment wer e their c ommand that he stop w alking awa y from the c ar and their e nsuing r equest for identification. Acc ording ly , we conclude that the deg ree of intrusion on Finley ’s liberty

was re asonably

related to the offic ers’ suspicion. F or the se re a so ns , w e c on c lud e that th e of fi c e rs ’ in iti a l c on ta c t w ithF inl e y did no t vi olate the Four th Amendment. Finley

offe rs no independe nt basis for suppre ssing the fruits of the sea rch or his statements to office rs, contending only that they wer e tainted by

the unlawf

ul initi al enc ounter. Be cause the initial encounter was constitut ional, there is no basis for suppre ssing the se ized evidence

or F inl e y ’s state me nts to o ff ic e rs a ft e r h is a

rr e st.Th e PSR ap pl ied the 20 04 ve rs ion of the Un ite d St a te s Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s. Al l 2 quotations from the Guidelines a re taken fr om the 2004 version.

9 C. Tw o-Level Sente ncing E nhan cem ent for P ossession of a Dangerous Weapon Finley next challeng es the district cour t’s imposit i o n o f a two-point enhance ment under Un i t edS t at es S en t en ci n g Gu i d el i n e § 2D 1

. 1 (b )( 1 ) fo r po s s es s i o n o f a da n ger o u s we ap o nd u ri n g a drug offe n s e. T he district cour t concluded that the enhanc ement applied be cause the g overnme nt had “show [n] that the fire arm wa s pos[ess] ed and that the defe ndant was involved in the dr ug business and there was some c onnection.” J.A. at 160 (Sentenc ing H r’gTr. at 26)

. 1. Stand ard of Review When review ing the district court’s application of the Sentenc ing G uidelines, we a pply the

same standards of re view that applied be fore United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). United States v. Dav idson , 409 F.3d 304, 310 (6th Cir. 2005). More spe cifica lly , we r eview f or cle ar e rror the district court’s finding s of fa ct, id. , but reviewde novo mix ed questions of law and fa ct, United States v. Cousins , 469 F.3d 572, 575 ( 6th Cir. 2006). 2. Ana lys is Guideline § 2D1.1( b )( 1 ) ca lls for a two-point enha nceme nt “[i] f a da

ng erous we apon (including a firear

m) was possessed.” Application Note 3 state s, “The a djustment should be applied 2 if the we apon was prese nt, unless it is clea rly improbable that the w eapon w as conne cted with the offe nse.” Putting this Guidelin e i nto prac tice, we have he ld that “[a]n enhanceme nt under § 2D1.1(b)( 1) is proper

only if the gover

nment establishes, by a prepondera nce of the evidenc e, that (1 ) th e d e f

e n d an t p o s s e s s e d

a d an g e r o u s w e a

p o n( 2 ) d u r in g th e c o mm is s io no f

a dr u g - tr a f f ic king offe nse.” United States v. Mose s , 289 F .3 d 847 , 850 (6 th Cir . 2 00 2) . I f t he g ov e rnme nt m e e ts i tsThe g overnme nt misconstrues Finley ’s ar g ument when it sug g ests that Finley bear s the 3 burd e n of pr ov ing that the fi re arm wa s no t c on ne c te d to the of fe ns e . T hat st and ard

mig ht a pp ly if Finley wer e cha lleng ing the dis t ri ct court’s r efusa l to gr ant him a re duction under § 5C1.2(a )’s “saf ety valve” provision. United States v. Bolka , 3 5 5 F

. 3 d 9 0 9 , 9 1 2 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 4 )

. F i n l e y, howeve r, cha lleng es the district cour t’s imposit ion o f t he § 2D1.1( b)(1) enhanc ement itself. Although r ever sal of the § 2D1.1( b)(1) enhanc ement mig ht ultim ately lead to a sa fety -valve reduc tion, the two inquiries are separ ate. See id. at 914-15. 10 burden, the n “the wea

pon is pr esumed to ha

ve been connec ted to the defe ndant’s off ense.” Id. The de fe nd ant c an r e bu t th is p re su mpt ion by e sta bli sh ing by a pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e the de fe ns e identified in Application Note 3—that it is clea rly improbable that the weapon w as conne cted to the offe nse. Id. 3 We have pr eviously

clar ified that the g overnme nt need n o t s h o w that the def

endant possesse d the we ap o n during the c om mi ssi on of t he off e ns e ; instead, it must s how only that the wea

pon was possessed during“re levant conduc t,” which “includes ‘all acts and omissions . . . that were part of the s ame course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the of

fense of convic tion.’” United States v. Faison , 339 F.3d 518, 520 ( 6th Cir. 2003) (quoting U .S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a) (2)) . Her e, the we apons in question were fo und not with the drug s that were found in Finley ’s ca r and c harg ed in the indictment, but rather w ith the drug s found in F inley ’s residenc e af ter he fled. Thus, to dete rmine whether Finley possessed the wea

pons during “re levant conduc t,” we must dete rmine whe ther the drug s found in the re sidence wer e part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as Fin l ey ’s possession of drug s in his white Mercur y on Dec ember

21, 2004. When determining whether two acts were part of the “same course of conduc t,” we c onsider the f ollowing f

actor s: (1) the similarity

of the acts; (2) the repe titions of t he acts or offe nses; and (3) the time interval be tween the ac ts. Id. Simi larly , for two a cts to be par t of a “ common scheme or plan,” they “mus t be substantially

connec ted by

at least on e co m m on fac tor such as ‘ common victims, commonFinley argued to the district c ourt that the drug s in the apar tment belong ed to his g irlfriend 4 C l a r y L e e . N o n e t h e l e s s , t h e i s s u e h e r e i s w h e t h e r F i n l e y possessed the drug s, not whether he owned the m. 11 acc omplices, common purpose, or simil ar modus operandi .’” Id. at 5 2 0 -2 1 (q u o t i n g United States

v . H ill , 79 F.3d 1477, 1481 ( 6th Cir.), cert. de nied , 519 U.S. 858 (1996)). First, we must de termine whether Finley possessed the drug s found in the residenc e. When 4 the of fi c e rs se arc he d F inl e y ’s a pa rtme nt o n D e c e mbe r 2 1, 20 04 , the y fo un d dr ug s in the a tti c wi th t h e w eap o n s , an d

t h e dru gs we re p ac k age d t h e s am e w ay

as t h o s e fo un d

i nFi n l ey ’s ca r. Al t h o u gh the district court did not offe r any clea r findings of fa ct, the Joi nt Appendix i n this case de monstrates by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that Finley constructively possessed the drug s in the attic. Thre e primary rea sons support this conclusion. First, Finley admitted that he was living in the residenc e wher e the o f

f ic e r s f o u n d th e ma r ij u an a . Se c o n d , th e k e y r in g p u ll e d

f r o m t h e w h it e M e r c ury contained ke y s to that residenc e. Third, the ma rijuana w as found in the same spac e (the attic) a s other items of whic h Finley acknow ledg ed owne rship (the gu n s ). B eca use the g overnme nt may establish constructive posse ssion of an item by demonstrating the def

endant’ s “dominion over the premises wher e the item is located,” United States v. Darwich , 337 F.3d 645, 665 (6th Cir. 2003), the af oreme ntioned three rea sons, taken tog ether , illust rate that Finley constructively

possessed the marijuana in the residenc e. The ne x t issue we must decide is w hether Finley ’s possession of the drug s in the car and the possession of the drug s in the house wer e similar enoug h and close enoug h in time to be par t of the same “ course of conduc t.” We conclude that they wer e. Of fice rs found the dr

ug s in the residenc e ho ur s a ft e r the y fo un d the dr ug s in F inl e y ’s c ar, and

the Joint Ap pe nd ix ind ic a te s th a t th e dr ug s in bo th l oc a tio ns were packag e d s imi larl y . F inl e y ’s po sse ssi on of the dr ug s in the a pa rtme nt i s12

there fore “re levant co n d uct” unde r the Sentenc ing G uidelines. And bec ause F inley possessed dang erous wea

pons in the same location as these drug s, the district court did not err in apply ing the § 2D1.1(b)( 1) enha

nceme nt. Faison , 339 F.3d at 520-21 (we apons and drug proce eds and para pherna lia found t og ether fourtee n months afte r end of charg ed conspiracy wer e re levant conduc t jus tif y ing § 2 D1 .1 e nh anc e me nt) ; Un ite d S tat es v . M itc he ll , 63 F. App’ x 224, 228-30 (6th Cir. 2003) (unpublished) (a ffirming enhanc ement whe n, months after the char g ed conduct, office rs found the g un wi th u nc ha rg e d d ru g s) ; see also Dav idson , 409 F.3d a t 312-13 (af

firming appl i ca t i o n o f t he enhanc ement to a de fenda nt convic te d

o f a tt e mp ti n g to ma nufac ture methamphetamine whe n the g un

wa s found in the same re sid e nc e a s th e dr ug s) ; United States v. Keszthelyi , 30 8 F .3 d 5 57 , 5 78 -7 9 ( 6th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) ( af

fi rm i n g ap p l i ca t i o no f t h e e n h an ce m en tt o a d ef en d an tco n v i ct ed o f d i s t ri b u t i n g dru gs

ou t of his ho me wh e n th e g un

wa s f ound in h is h ome ); H

ill , 7 9 F. 3 d at 1485-86 (e nhance ment aff irmed whe n wea

pon was found in same house a s the cha rg ed drug s). Fur

ther, F inley

has provided

no rea son to conclude that it was clea rly improbable that his possession of t he guns wa s connec ted with his possession of the drug s. Thus we re ject F inley ’s cha lleng e to his sentence

. III . C ON CL USI ON F or the a fo re me nti on e d r e a so ns , w e AF F I RM the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s jud g me nt.