FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Jul y 10, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 15992 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 0 0 0 3 8 - CR- 4 - RH - W CS U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s R O N D I C K T R O U P E , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe N or the r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 10, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , B IR C H an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

R ondi c k T r oupe pl e d gui l ty t o pos s e s s i on of a f i r e a r m by a c onvi c t e d f

e l on, i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . §§ 922( g) a nd 924( a ) ( 2) , a nd w a s s e nt e nc e d t o 110 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent . O n app ea l , T roup e c hal l enges onl y the appl i ca t i on of a four-l evel enhancem entun der s ec t i on 2K 2. 1 o f the advi sory S ent enci ng G ui del i nes f orpos s e s s i on of

a f i r e a r m i n c onne c t i on w i th a nothe rf e l ony of f e ns e . F orthe r e a s o n s s e tf

o r th mo r e f

u l l y b e l o w , w e a f

f i r m. T r o u p e a g r e e d to a s ta te m e n t o f f a c ts , w h ic h d e s c r ib e d th e e v e n ts le a d in g to hi s a rr es tas fol l ow s: O n M ay 12 , 20 06 , m em bers of the T al l ahas se e P ol i ce D e p a r tm e n t ( “T P D ” ) lo c a te d a s to le n C h e v r o le t I m p a la . A f te ra f e w m in u te s , a H on da A cc ord p arked n extt o t he Im pal a, and tw o m en exi t ed the A cc ord. W hen T P D offi ce rs m ade thei r pre se nce kno w n, bo th m en fl ed on foot . T he dri ver, T r oupe , w a s c aptur e d, butthe pa s s e nge rw a s not . O f f i c e r s r e c ove r e d a gun f

r om T r oupe ’ s j a c ke tpoc ke ta s w e l l a s a c e l l phone a nd $181. T he y a l s o r e c ove r e d a qua r t e r“ c i r c l e ” of

c r a c k c oc a i ne a nd s e ve r a l pi e c e s of c r a c k c oc a i ne f

r om the p a s s e n g e r - s id e f

lo o rb o a r d o f

th e A c c o r d a n d a p a r tia lly s m o k e d m a r iju a n a c ig a r e tte f r o m th e c e n te rc o n s o le . In the pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” ), the prob at i on offi ce r app l i ed a f ou r- l evel enhancem entfor posse ss i on of a f i re arm i n con nect i on w i th ano ther f e lo n y o f f e n s e , a s T r o u p e w a s f

o u n d in p o s s e s s io n o f

a f ir e a r m in c o n n e c tio n w ith3

a id in g a n d a b e ttin g g r a n d th e f t o f a m o to rv e h ic le a n d p o s s e s s io n o f c o c a in e w ith i nt entt o sel l . T roup e obj ec t ed, ar gu i ng thathe di d n otkn ow thatthe vehi cl e w as s t ol e n a nd di d notpos s e s s the c oc a i ne . T he pr oba t i on of f i c e rr e s ponde d tha tthe e nha nc e m e ntw a s a ppr opr i a t e ba s e d upon the pr oxi m i ty of the f i r e a r m t o the drugs i n T roup e’ s vehi cl e. A t th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , T r o u p e te s tif ie d th a t h e r e c e iv e d a p h o n e c a ll f r om hi s br othe rbe c a us e the c a rhi s br othe rw a s dr i vi ng, the I m pa l a , ha d run outof gas. T roup e drove hi s brother t o t he gas s t at i on t o p urchas e gas , and t hen t hey re turned t o t he Im pal a. T roup e deni ed kn ow i ng thatthe ca r w as st ol en un t i l af t er he w a s a r r e s t e d. W he n the y a r r i ve d, hi s br othe r , w ho w a s s i t t i ng i n the f r ont p a s s e n g e rs e a t o f

th e A c c o r d , e x ite d th e v e h ic le f ir s t. T r o u p e p o p p e d th e tru n k to ge tthe ga s a nd not i c e d a pi s t ol i n the f r ontpa s s e nge rs e a t . H e i nt e nde d t o gi ve the gun ba c k t o hi s br othe rbe c a us e he kne w tha the w a s nots uppos e d t o be a r ound a g u n . W h e n h is b r o th e re x ite d th e c a r , T r o u p e d id n o t s e e th e c r a c k c o c a in e . H ow ever , he adm i t t ed thathe sa w the cr ac k cocai ne i n h i s brother’ s l ap w hen t hey w er e r eturni ng fr om the gas s t at i on . T roup e i ni t i al l y s t at ed thathe had n o i dea w he the rhi s br othe rw a s pos s e s s i ng i tw i th i nt e ntt o s e l l , a nd he de ni e d a ny i nvol ve m e ntw i th the s a l e of c r a c k c oc a i ne . O n c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, T r oupe adm i t t ed that , i n t he 19 90 ’ s, he had fou r c ocai ne-r el at ed conv i ct i on s, w hi ch4

g en eral l y i n v o l v ed h i s at t em p tt o sel l co cai n e o r crack co cai n e. T ro u p e al so a dm i t t e d tha t : ( 1) he s ol d c oc a i ne a f t e r2000; ( 2) he oc c a s i ona l l y obt a i ne d c oc a i ne f r om hi s br othe r ; ( 3) he kne w tha thi s br othe rw a s s e l l i ng drugs ; a nd ( 4) i tw a s not a “ bi g surpri se ” t o see the cocai ne i n h i s brother’ s l ap. T roup e f urther a dm i t t ed th a t h e h a d h e a r d th a t, in th e p a s t, h is b r o th e rh a d r e n ta l c a r s th a t w e r e n o t r e tu r n e d . H e a ls o s ta te d th a t h e a s s u m e d th a t h is b r o th e rw o u ld s e ll th e d ru g s a n d th a t h is brot her w as no ta use r of c ra ck cocai ne. T he di stri ctcourtov errul ed T roup e’ s obj ec t i on t o t he four-l evel i ncre as e, f i ndi ng tha tthe e nha nc e m e nts houl d be a ppl i e d “ i n a c c or da nc e w i th . . . the tr e a tm e nti n the [ P S I ] . ” T he c our tr e j e c t e d T r oupe ’ s t e s t i m ony tha the di d not know a boutthe gun unt i l a f t e rhi s br othe re xi t e d the c a r . I ns t e a d, the c our tf ound th a t, b a s e d o n th e g r e a te rw e ig h t o f th e e v id e n c e , it w a s m o r e lik e ly T r o u p e ’s g u n . T he c our tne xtf

ound tha tthe gun w a s notpos s e s s e d i n c onne c t i on w i th the the f tof th e v e h ic le , r e

je c tin g T r o u p e ’s te s tim o n y th a t h e w a s g o in g to r e tu r n th e g u n to h is br othe r . S t a t i ng tha tthe c onne c t i on t o the drugs w a s a c l os e i s s ue , the c our tf ound thati tw as m ore l i kel y thatT roup e’ s brother posse ss ed the drug s a nd brou gh tthem in to T ro u p e’s v eh icle fo r th e trip to th e g as statio n . T h e c o u rt re jected T ro u p e’s t es t i m on y thathe had n o rea son t o k no w thathi s brother w as engaged i n d rug sal es unt i l he s a w the drugs i n the ve hi c l e , f i ndi ng tha tT r oupe ha d gr e a t e rknow l e dge of5

hi s brother’ s a ct i vi t i es and p robabl y knew , w hen l ea vi ng the ho use t o g etgas, that drug a c t i vi t i e s w e r e i nvol ve d. T he di s tr i c tc our tr e c ogni z e d tha t , unde rU . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1, a n e nha nc e m e nt f orpos s e s s i ng a f

i r e a r m i s a ppl i e d i f

the w e apon w a s pr e s e nta tthe s c e ne of the d ru g o f f e n s e u n le s s it w a s c le a r ly im p r o b a b le th a t th e w e ap o n w a s c o n n e c te d w ith the offens e. N ot i ng thatgu i dance fr om thi s C ou rtw ou l d b e hel pful as t o w hether or no tthe § 2 D 1. 1 st andard w as the sa m e a s the st andard for posses si on of a f ir e a r m in c o n n e c tio n w ith a f e lo n y o f f e n s e u n d e r§ 2 K 2 .1 , th e c o u r t s ta te d th a t th is C ou rtappears t o equ at e the tw o st andards. H ow ever , the courtexpl ai ned t hat , even i f th e c l e a r l y i mp r o b a b l e s t a n d a r d d i d n o ta p p l y , i tw o u l d r e a c h th e s a me c onc l us i on. O n appe a l , T r oupe a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r one ous l y a ppl i e d the ap p lic a tio n n o te s f

r o m § 2 D 1 .1 in s te a d o f

th o s e in § 2 K 2 .1 , c o n te n d in g th a t th is e n h a n c e m e n tc a n n o tb e a p p l i e d s i m p l y b e c a u s e a g u n wa s p r e s e n twi th d ru g s . As to th e d istrict co u rt’s sp ec ific fin d in g s, T ro u p e c h allen g es th e d istrict co u rt’s f a i l ur e t o c r e di thi s t e s t i m ony i n i t s e nt i r e ty a s i nc ons i s t e ntw i th l ogi c a nd the e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d. H e a l s o c ont e nds tha t , unde re i the ra ppr oa c h us e d by the d is tr ic t c o u r t, th e e n h a n c e m e n t w a s n o t w a r r a n te d . W e r e vi e w de novo the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s a ppl i c a t i on a nd i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the6

S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s a nd i t s f i ndi ngs of

f a c tf orc l e a re r r or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R h in d , 2 8 9 F .3 d 6 9 0 , 6 9 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . “F o ra f a c tu a l f in d in g to b e ‘c le a r ly e r r one ous , ’ thi s c our t , ‘ a f t e rr e vi e w i ng a l l of

the e vi de nc e , m us tbe l e f tw i th a de f i ni t e a nd f

i r m c onvi c t i on tha ta m i s t a ke ha s be e n c om m i t t e d. ’ ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R o d r ig u e z - L o p e z , 3 6 3 F .3 d 1 1 3 4 , 1 1 3 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . In ca l cul at i ng the gu i del i ne ra ng e f or a f i re arm po ss es si on offe nse und er § 922( g) , a f

our - l e ve l i nc r e a s e t o the ba s e of f e ns e l e ve l i s r e qui r e d “ [ i ] f the d efen d an t. . . p o ssessed an y fi rearm . . . i n co n n ect i o n w i th an o th er fel o n y o ffen se

. . . . ” U . S . S . G . § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 6) ( 2006) ( pr e vi ous l y c odi f i e d a t§ 2K 2. 1( b) ( 5) ) . T he ph ra se “ i n con nect i on w i th” i s notdefi ned i n t he 20 05 G ui del i nes M anual . S ee ge ne r a l l y U . S . S . G . § 2K 2. 1, c om m e nt . ( 2005) . A l though the t e xtof thi s pr ovi s i on ha s notc ha nge d, e f

f e c t i ve N ove m be r1, 2006, the gui de l i ne w a s a m e nde d t o a dd th e f o llo w in g c o m m e n ta r y : 14 . “ In C on nect i on W i th”. -- ( A ) I n G e ne r a l . - - S ubs e c t i on[ ] ( b) ( 6) . . . a ppl [ i e s ] i f the f i r e a r m or am m un i t i on fa ci l i t at ed, or had t he po t ent i al of fa ci l i t at i ng , anot her f e lo n y o f f e n s e . . . . (B ) A pp l i ca t i on W hen O ther O ff ense i s B urgl ary or D rug O ff ense . -- S ubs e c t i on[ ] ( b) ( 6) . . . appl [ i e s ] . . . i n the c a s e of a drug tr a f

f i c ki ng o ffen se i n w h i ch a fi rearm i s fo u n d i n cl o se p ro x i m i ty t o d ru g s, d ru g -m an u fa ctu rin g m ater ials, o r d ru g p ar ap h er n alia. In [th is] cas e[ ], appl i c a t i on of

s ubs e c t i on[ ] ( b) ( 1) . . . i s w a r r a nt e d be c a us e the pr e s e nc e of

the f i r e a r m ha s the pot e nt i a l of f a c i l i t a t i ng a nothe rf

e l onyAlthough thePSI ’s calculations werebased on the2005 Guidelines Manual, Troupe’ s 1 sentenc ing he aringwas he ld on November 3, 2006, two days after

the November 1, 2006 amendments be c amee ff

e c tiv e . There fo re , th edis tric t c ourt sh ould h avec on side re d whe ther to apply this commentary . See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11( a), (b)(1) (re quiringuse of the Guidelines Manu a l in

e ff e c t on thedateof

sentenc ingun le ss s uc h a n a pp lic atio n w ould c on sti tut ean e x pos t fac to violation); S tinson v. United St ates, 508 U.S. 36, 38, 113 S.Ct. 1913, 1915, 123 L .Ed.2d 59 8 ( 19 93 ) ( “ [C]omm e nta ry in t heGuide lin e s Ma

nu a l th at interp rets o r e xplains a guide lin eis authoritative unless it violates the Constituti on or a f ederal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous re adingof, that guideline.”) ; see also United States v. Saunders, 318 F .3d 1257, 1262 n.4 (11th Cir. 2003) (“ Be cause‘[t] he cour t shall use the Guidelines Manual in effe ct on the date that the defendant is sentence d,’ § 1B 1.11, we referenc e the Ma nual ef fec tive on 1 November

2001 throughout this opi nion.”) (alteration in orig inal). The record sug g ests that the district court wa s not aware of this amendment, but inst ead a pplied the 2005 Manual. However, Troupe ha s not raised this argument on appeal and, there fore , has aba ndoned the issue. See United States v. Cunningham, 161 F.3d 1343, 1344 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that the de fenda nt abandone d an issue on appe al by failingto offer

any argument). 7 o f f e n s e . . . . U . S . S . G . § 2K 2. 1, c om m e nt . ( n. 14) ( 2006) ; U . S . S . G . A pp. C , A m e nd. 691. 1 Int erpret i ng the “ i n con nect i on w i th” re qu i re m entun der f orm er § 2 K2 . 1 ( b ) ( 5 ) , we “ h e l d th a tth e t e r m ‘ i n c o n n e c t i o n wi th ’ i n U. S . S . G. § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 5) s houl d be gi ve n i t s or di na r y a nd na tur a l m e a ni ng, a nd w e ha ve e xpr e s s l y r e

j e c t e d a m or e r e s tr i c t i ve i nt e rpr e t a t i on. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S m i th, 480 F . 3d 12 77 , 12 80 (11t h C i r. 20 07 ). A cc ordi ng t o t he ph ra se ’ s ordi nary and n atural m e a ni ng, the f

i r e a r m doe s notha ve t o f a c i l i t a t e the unde r l y i ng of f e ns e . R hi nd, 289 F .3 d a t 6 9 5 . F u r th e r m o r e , “p o s s e s s io n o f a f ir e a r m w ith in te n t to u s e it to f a c ilita te th e c o mmi s s i o n o f

a f e l o n y o f f e n s e , o rw i th i n t e n tt o u s e i ts h o u l d i tb e c o me nece ss ary t o fac i l i t at e thatcr i m e, i s posse ss i on ‘ i n con nect i on w i th’ thatoffe nse. ” U n ite d S ta te s v . J a c k s o n , 2 7 6 F .3 d 1 2 3 1 , 1 2 3 4 - 3 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . “M o r e o v e r , inWhil e wequestion whether Troupe adequate ly

preserved this issue bef

ore thedistrict 2 court, the g overnment does not argue that our review is limited to plain error , and weneed not decidethe appropriate standa rd of review ba sed on our c onclusion that the error, if any, was harmless. SeeUnited States v. Ly nn, 608 F.2d 132, 135 ( 5th Cir. 1979) (holding that it was unne c e ssa

ry to de c idewh e ther evide nti ary ob je c tio ns werepre serv e d ade qu ate ly ba se d o n it s dispositi on of the issues); seealso United States v. Dobbs, 11 F .3d 152, 154 n.4 (11th Cir. 1994) (add re ssingan is su e“ a s if

it h a d b e e n p roperly

pre serv e d”wh e retherewa s a c los equ e sti on

a s to 8 i nt e rpr e t i ng G ui de l i ne pr ovi s i ons tha tc ont a i n a n ‘ i n c onne c t i on w i th’ r e qui r e m e nt i d en t i cal t o U . S . S . G . § 2 K 2 . 1 (b )(5 ), w e h av e h el d th at , ‘ i n cert ai n ci rcu m st an ces, m er e posse ss i on of a f

i re arm ca n b e e no ug h t o app l y ase nt enci ng enhancem ent . ’ ” S m ith , 4 8 0 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 0 ( q u o tin g J a c k s o n , 2 7 6 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 4 ) . W i th regard t o T roup e’ s c on t ent i on thatthe di stri ctcourtappl i ed an i ncorrec tl egal st andard, un der § 2D 1. 1, a drug o ff ense gu i del i ne, a tw o-l evel i nc r e a s e i s r e qui r e d i f

a f i r e a r m “ w a s pos s e s s e d. ” U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 1) . T he com m ent ary provi des thatthi s “ adj ustm entshou l d b e app l i ed i f the w eapo n w as pr e s e nt , unl e s s i ti s c l e a r l y i m pr oba bl e tha tthe w e apon w a s c onne c t e d w i th the o f f e n s e .” I d ., c o m m e n t. ( n .3 ) . U n d e rth is p r o v is io n , th e g o v e r n m e n t n e e d o n ly prov e thatthe fi re arm w as pres entdu ri ng the drug tra ff i cki ng offe nse. U ni t ed S t a t e s v. A uda i n, 254 F . 3d 1286, 1289- 90 ( 11th C i r . 2001) . O nc e the gove r nm e nt do es so, the bu rden shi ft s t o t he defendantt o est abl i sh thata c on nect i on betw ee n th e w e ap o n a n d th e o f

f e n s e w a s c le a r ly im p r o b ab le . I d . a t 1 2 8 9 . W e n e e d n o t d e c id e w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in a p p ly in g th e “c le a r ly i m pr oba bl e ” s t a nda r d of § 2D 1. 1 c om m e nt . ( n. 3) t o § 2K 2. 1. C f . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. 2preservation of the issue f or appe al). 9 D rur y , 396 F . 3d 1303, 1314 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d, 126 S . C t . 336 ( 2005) (dec l i ni ng t o d ec i de w hether aj ury i nstruct i on w as erroneou s bec ause the error w as h a r m le s s ) . B e c au s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a ls o f o u n d th a t it w o u ld r e a c h th e s a m e r e s u lt even i f i tdi d n otappl y the § 2 D 1. 1 st andard, any e rr or i n i t s app l i ca t i on of that s t a nda r d w oul d be ha r m l e s s . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i a m s , 456 F . 3d 1353, 1360 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) , p e t. f

o rc e r t. f ile d , ( O c t. 1 9 , 2 0 0 6 ) ( N o . 0 6 - 7 3 5 2 ) ( h o ld in g th a t a g u id e lin e s m is c a lc u la tio n is h a r m le s s , a n d th e r e f o r e d o e s n o t w a r r a n t r e v e r s a l, if the di stri ctcourtw ou l d h ave i m po se d t he sa m e s ent ence w i tho utthe error) ; se e al so U ni t ed S t at es v. S cot t , 44 1 F . 3d 13 22 , 13 30 (11t h C i r. 20 06 ) ( com m ent i ng that w e w ou l d h ave hel d t hatan error w as harm l es s i f the di stri ctcourthad st at ed that

“ i tw oul d r e a c h the s a m e s e nt e nc e r e ga r dl e s s of how the di s put e d § 2A 6. 1( b) ( 1) is s u e w a s d e c id e d .” ) . T ur ni ng t o the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ngs of

f a c t , w e ha ve he l d tha t“ [ t ] he c r e di bi l i ty of

a w i tne s s i s i n the pr ovi nc e of the f a c t f i nde ra nd thi s c our tw i l l not or di na r i l y r e vi e w the f

a c t f i nde r ’ s de t e r m i na t i on of c r e di bi l i ty . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C op el and, 20 F . 3d 41 2, 41 3 (11 th C i r. 19 94 ). M oreover, w e have hel d t hata j ury ca n d i sbel i eve aw i tness and i nferthatthe op po si t e of hi s t es t i m on y i s true, U ni t ed S t a t e s v. H a s ne r , 340 F . 3d 1261, 1272 ( 11th C i r . 2003) , a nd ne e d notf ul l y a c c e pt10

orf ul l y r e j e c ta w i tne s s e s ’ s t e s t i m ony , s e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M c D ona l d, 620 F . 2d 559, 565 ( 5th C i r . 1980) ( appr ovi ng a j ur y i ns truc t i on w hi c h s t a t e d, “ I f y ou be l i e ve tha ta ny w i tne s s ha s be e n s o i m pe a c he d, the n i ti s y oure xc l us i ve pr ovi nc e t o gi ve th e te s tim o n y o f

th a t w itn e s s s u c h c r e d ib ility o rw e ig h t, if a n y , a s y o u m a y th in k it d e s e r v e s .” ) . T h e r e f

o r e , w e c a n n o t c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c le a r ly e r r e d in o n ly p a r tia lly c r e d itin g T r o u p e ’s te s tim o n y . I n or de rt o s how tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc l e a r l y e r r e d i n i t s ul t i m a t e f i ndi ng, T r oupe r e l i e s upon hi s ve r s i on of the f a c t s , c ont e ndi ng tha tne i the rthe drugs nor the fi re arm bel on ged t o h i m , he on l y unl aw ful l y posse ss ed the fi re arm for afe w m om e nt s , a nd he di d notpos s e s s the drugs orc om m i tthe of f e ns e of drug pos s e s s i on. H ow e ve r , the di s tr i c tc our tr e j e c t e d T r oupe ’ s t e s t i m ony tha tthe gun d id n o t b e lo n g to h im a n d th a t h e o n ly p o s s e s s e d th e f ir e a r m f o ra f e w m o m e n ts . A lth o u g h th e c o u rt ag re ed th at T ro u p e’s b ro th erb ro u g h t th e d ru g s in to T ro u p e’s ca r, i tfoun d t hatT roup e had kn ow l edge of hi s brother’ s a ct i vi t i es before he sa w the drugs . T hus , T r oupe l e f tthe hous e t o ge tga s , pr oba bl y know i ng tha tdrug a c t i vi t i e s w e r e i nvol ve d, buti n pos s e s s i on of a gun. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notf i nd tha tT r oupe pos s e s s e d the drugs , butf ound T r oupe a c c ount a bl e ba s e d on a i di ng a n d a b e ttin g h is b r o th e r ’s p o s s e s s io n a n d th e p r o x im ity o f th e g u n to th e d ru g s . T roup e does not , ho w ever , expl ai n h ow , un der the di stri ctcourt ’ s f ac t s, the di stri ct11

c our tc l e a r l y e r r e d i n f

i ndi ng tha the pos s e s s e d the gun i n c onne c t i on w i th the drug of f e ns e . B e c a us e T r oupe ha s note s t a bl i s he d tha tthe s e pr e l i m i na r y f a c tua l f i ndi ngs w ere cl earl y erro n eo u s an d h e o ffers n o arg u m en tas t o h o w , b ased o n th ese facts, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c le a r ly e r r e d in c o n c lu d in g th a t h e p o s s e s s e d a f ir e a r m in conn ec t i on w i th a drug offe nse, w e hol d t hatT roup e has fa i l ed t o est abl i sh cl ea r error. S ee C un ni ng ham , 16 1 F . 3d at13 44 (hol di ng thatthe defendantabando ned an i ss ue on appeal by fa i l i ng t o o ff erany a rgum ent ). I n lig h t o f

th e f o r e g o in g , T r o u p e ’s s e n te n c e is AF F I RME D.