Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R . 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent exc ept under the limite d circumstances set forthin5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 60506 Su m m ar y Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f - A pp el l ee v. TI M OTHY L . S TA CKER D efen d a n t - A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f o rt he N o r t he r n Di s t r i c to f M i s s i s s i ppi U S D C N o . 2 :05 -C R -1 2 1 -1 B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , W IE N E R , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * T i m ot h y S t acker ap pea l s t h e sentence i m posed f ol l ow i n g h i s gui l t y pl ea t o tw o cou n t s of

bei n g a fel on i n possess i on of a f i rearm an d on e coun tof po s s e s s i o n wi t h i nt e ntt o di s t r ibut e a m i xt ur e and s ubs t anc e c o nt ai ni ng c o c ai ne base. Stacker argues that th e d i st ri ctcourterr ed byenh an ci n g h i s s en t en ce pu rsuan tt o U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1(b) ( 1) , w h i ch ap pl i es w h ere a “ da n ger o u s w eap on (i n cl u di n g a f

i rearm ) w as possessed, ” becau se w h en pol i ce searched hi s h ou se a United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Jul y 22, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 60506

U.S. v. Armst rong, 5 5 0F .3 d 3 8 2 , 4 0 4( 5 thC ir . 2 0 0 8). 1 U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1, co mment 3. 2 9 0 6F .2 d 1 2 9 , 1 3 4( 5 thC ir . 1 9 9 0). 3U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1, co mment 3 s t at esth at the enh anc ementwoul d not applyif the 4 defen dant“h ad an unloade d huntin g rifleinthe closet.” Thatis not the case here . S tacker had an operation al pistolina room in the hou se. 2 pi st olw as f

ound i n a s epar at e r oo m f r om t he c oc ai ne a n d drug par apher nal i a. H e a r g u e s th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e din fin d in gth e w e a p o n w a s “a c c e s s ib le .” W h en revi ew i n g f

or procedu ral error i n t h e app l i cat i on of t h e G u i del i n es, w e exam i n e t h e di st ri ctcourt ' s i n t erpret ati on or ap pl i cat i on of t h e G u i del i n es de novo , a n dits fa c tu a l fin d in g s fo rcle a re r r o r . A § 2 D 1 .1 e n h a n c e m e n t is 1 ap pr o pr i at e i f

a w e ap o n i s pr e s e nt“ unl e s s i ti s c l e ar l y i m pr o ba bl e t hatt he w e a p o n w a s co n n e c te dw ith th e o ffe n s e .” 2 I n Un i t ed S t ate s v. McK eeve r , t hi s C o ur taf

f i r m e d a§ 2 D 1. 1 e nhan c e m e nt 3 e v e n th o u g h th e w e a p o n s w e r e n o t in th e s a m e ro o m a s th e d r u g s : “W h ile it is t r ue t hatnone o f

t hes e w eapo ns w as di sc ove r ed i n t he l abor at or y ar ea, t he j udge w as enti t l ed to i n fer t h at th e y w ere s t i l l‘ present’w i t h i n t h e m ean i n g of A ppl i c at i on N ot e 3 . ” H er e, th e recor d es t abl i she s t hatan ope r at i onal. 380 c a lib e r p i s t o l w a s fo u n din S ta c k e r ’ s re s id e n c e th e d a ya fte rS ta c k e rh a ds o ld i l l egal dru gs f

rom t h e res i den ce. I ti s not cl earl y i m proba bl e t h at t h e w eap on w as conn ect ed w i t h t h e of fen se. 4 AF F I RMED.