1 The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota, sitting by designation. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-2053

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Dorian M. Jefferson, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: January 15, 2008 Filed: March 7, 2008

___________ Before COLLOTON and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSON, 1 District Judge.

___________ SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge. Pursuant to active bench warrants, St. Louis, Missouri police officers arrested Dorian M. Jefferson outside of his residen ce and entered his house to execute a search warrant. Two loaded handguns , drug paraphernalia, and le ss than a gram of cocaine base were found in a drawer of a dresse r in Jefferson’s bedroom. A loaded .30-30 caliber rifle was found in his bedroom clos et. The rifle and one of the handguns were2The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -2- successfully test fired. The other handgun was inoperable because it was missing a firing pin and spring. Jefferson was indicted with, and pled guilty to, one count of being a felon in the possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Prior to sentencing, Jefferson objected to the imposition of a four-level enhan cement for the possession of a firearm “in connection with” another felony offense. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual , § 2K2.1(b)(6) (Nov. 2006). The district court 2overruled the objection, and we affirm. We review the district court’s interp retation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Harper , 466 F.3d 634, 649 (8th Cir. 2006), cert. denied , 127 S. Ct. 1504 (2007). The presentence investigation report recommended the fou r-level enhancement because possession of cocaine base is a felony under Missouri law. Mo. Ann. Stat. § 195.202 (West 2004). Jefferson argues that becausehe was outside of his apartment at the time the contraband was found, there was an insuffi cient nexus between him and the guns and the drugs for section 2K2.1(b)(6) to appl y. A connection can be inferred from the physical proximity of guns and drugs to each other; whenever a defendant has access to both at the same time, the risk of violence is increased. See United States v. Martinez , 258 F.3d 760, 762 (8th Cir. 2001) ; United States v. Regans , 125 F.3d 685, 686 (8th Cir. 1997). Thus the district court did not err in applying the Sentencing Guidelines to the undisputed facts of Jefferson’s conduct. Jefferson further argues that section 2K 2.1(b)(6) of the Sentencing Guidelines is unconstitutionally vague. When the Guide lines were mandatory, we flatly rejected arguments that they were subject to a va gueness challenge. Unite d States v. Wivell ,-3- 893 F.2d 156, 159 (8th Cir. 1990). We descri bed the Guidelines as “directives to judges for their guidance in sentencing c onvicted criminals,” not prohibitions on conduct for citizens at large. Id. at 160. Then we observe d that “a defendant’s due process rights are unimpaired by the completeabsence of sentencing guidelines.” Id. Now that the Guidelines are advisory, we see no reason to reach a different conclusion than in Wivell . Jefferson’s vagueness challenge is denied. For these reasons, we affirm the decision of the district court.

______________________________