### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J uly 15, 20 04 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 03- 1226 3 D. C. Docket N o. 99-00137 CR-T -N -2 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee Cr oss -Appe llant, ve rs us CLARENCE CLAY, D ef en dant- Appe llant Cross-Appellee. Appeals fr om

the United State s District Court f o r th e M i d d l e D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma (J ul y 15 , 200 4) Be fo re D U BIN A , CA RN E S an d C U D A H Y *, Ci rc uit Jud ge s.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ *Honora ble Richard D . Cudahy , United States Circuit J udg e for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by desig nation.2

DU BIN A, Circuit Judge: Appellant Clare nce Clay

(“ Clay ”) a

ppeals his con viction s and sentences im po se d b y th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Al ab am a. Ina ddi tio n, the gov er

nm en t c ro ss- ap pe al s f

ro m the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r ef

usa l t o im po se a two -le ve l en ha nc em en t t o C la y ’s sen te nc e. Fo r th e rea so ns th atfol lo w, w e a f f i rm.
I. BACKG ROUND A ft er atr ia l, aj ur

y f ound Cl ay gui lty of c onsp ir ac y

to dis tr ibu te and p oss es s with intent to dis tribute four kilog ram s of cocaine hy drochloride, 50 or m ore gr am s of c oc ai ne ba se , and 1 , 000 or m or e kil ogr am s of

m ar ij uana , a ll in v iol at ion of 21 U
. S. C. §§ 8 41( a) (1 ) an d 84 6, and w ithunl aw fu l us e of ac om m uni catio n facility , a telephone, in violatio n of 21 U. S. C. § 843 (b). T he j ury wa s, howe ver, una ble to ag re e on the a m ount of dr ugs that sh oul d be a ttr ibu te d to Cl ay . T he dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed

Cl ay to 56 m onths i m

pr iso nm en t, but

pe rm itt ed

him to re m ai n f re e on b ond pe ndi ng the out co m e of thi s a ppe al
. John W . B arnes (“ Agent Bar nes”) is a S enior Special A gent with the United States Custom s Service. A t the tim e of the events in this case, A gent Barnes w as as sig ne d to the H ighI nte nsi ty D ru g T ra ff

ic kin g A re a (“ H ID T A ”) ta sk f or ce in3

Mon tgo m er

y , A la ba m a. T he H ID T A ta sk f or ce is a fe de ra lly

f unde d in ve sti ga tiv e ta skfor ce co m

po se d o f fed eral , st at e, an d l oc al law en fo rcem en t o ffi cers . H ID T A ’ s st at ed

m iss ionis to l oc at e, ide nti fy , and d ism an tle dr ug sm uggl ing /tr af

fi ck ing or ganiz at ion s. In De cem ber 1997, Agent Barnes rec eived a re quest from Bill Baker (“ A ge nt B ak er ”) , af

el lowCu sto m s a ge nt i n C inc inn at i, O hio , se ek ing inf orm at ion ab out an in div idu al by

the nam e of

“ JohnRi le y ” in M ont gom er y , A la ba m a. A ge nt Barnes r equested and received inform ation from the Montgo m ery

Police De partm ent, which he forwarded to Agent Baker in Cincinnati. A gent Barnes confirm ed that the John Riley , who was the subjec t of Agent Baker’ s interest, w as al so th e Jo hn Ril ey

id en ti fie d t hr ou gh th e Mo nt go m ery Po li ce Dep art m en t. Ther eafte r, Agents Bar

nes and Baker began w orking to gether in a narc otics i n v e s t i g a t i o n th a ti mp a c t e dAl ab a ma a n dKe n tu c ky. In April 1998, T ony

Montoy a (“ Montoy a”), a cooperating indiv idual (“ CI”) , assisted Agents Barnes and Baker , a long with others, in arranging a controlled
m ee tin g be tw ee n M ont oy a an d R ile y . T he pur pose of the m ee tin g w as f

or Ri le y to de liv er m one y to Mon toy a fo r m ar ij uanathat ha d pr ev iou sly be ende liv er ed

to Ri le y . Whe n th e m ee tin g oc curr ed , A ge nt B ar ne s and o the rs thr oughthe use of surveillance equipm ent wer e able to m onito r Riley givin g Monto y a $77,500. In4

ad dit ionto m oni tor ing Ri le y , the a ge nts m oni tor ed the m one y

that R ile y

gave to Montoy a as it left Montgo m ery and traveled acr oss th e border into Mexico through Laredo, T exas. The f ollowing m onth , a

second delivery

occurre d. A fter arri vi ng in Mo nt go m ery, Mo nt oya con ta ct edRil ey vi a p ag er an d c el l t el ep ho ne . A ge nt B ar

ne s su pe rv ise d th es e co nta ct s. A ga in, the a ge nts se t up sur ve ill an ce in
ana dj oin ing hot el r oom

and m oni tor ed

the de liv er

y of appr oxi m at el y

$60 , 000 by Ri le y to Mon toy a. Mo nto y a co nti nue d to pr ovi de a ge nts w ithinf orm at ionabout Ri le y an d h is co nt act s o ut si de th e d is tri ct . U nable to ide nti fy

Ri le y ’ s lo ca l c o- co nspi rator s, A ge nt B ar ne s de ci de d to obt ai n pe n r eg ist er s f

or Ri le y ’ s c el lul ar

te le phon e w iththe hop es of obt ai nin g authorization to intercept Riley ’ s telephone conv ersations. Re cords obtained through subpo ena re vealed that Clay subscribed to the cellular tele phon e num ber
use d by Ri le y to co m m uni cate w ithMo nto y a an d othe r CI s, and the c el lul ar pho ne b i l l s we n tt o C l a y’s h o me a d dr e s s a t1 0 3 0 Lyn w o o dDr i v e , M o n t g o mery, Alabam a. Based on this inform ation abou t the unlawful use of the cellular telephone su bscribed to byClay , the governm ent soug ht and ob tained a wir e tap or de r. O n June 3, 199 9, e le ve n day s in to the w ir e ta p, a ge nts int er ce pte d a conversation between Clay and Riley
. During this conv ersation, Clay com plained ab out the poo r qua lity

of the m ar ij uanaand h is i nabil ity to se ll it. R ile y

tr ie d to5

r e l i e v e C l a y’ s an x i e t y b y p r o mi s i n g t o p i c ku p th e mar i j u a n aan dg i v e h i m s o me new m arij uana when the next shipm ent cam e in. Additionally , C lay and Riley
use d nu m be rs that w er e co nsi ste nt w iththo se use d by Ri le y in a co nve rs at ionw ith uni ndi ct ed

c o- co nspi rator , L oui s C al vinCo ok ( “ Co ok” ), w he n R ile y and C ook ta lk edab ou t m ari

juan a. When Riley

rea lized that he wa s being follo we d by agents, he m et w ith Clay and gave him

the cellular tele phon e. Clay took th e cellular telephone to a local Po w er te l of fi ce and c hange d th e num be r. A ddi tio na lly , Cl ay

spe ci fi ca lly requested that the SIM c ard (i. e. , a com puter chip that ident ifies the phone nu m ber with that car d) be changed, r esulting in the term ination of the first court autho rized wire tap for that particular cellular telephone. While in po ssessio n of the cellular telephone, Clay

answer ed the telephone and id entified him self as Riley ’ s “ partner”
an d pr om ise d to de liv er

am es sa ge to Ri le y . A ft er c hangi ng the num

be r to the
a f o r e men t i o n e dc e l l u l a r

t e l e p h o n e , C l a y re tu rn e di tt o R i l e y. O n Ju ly 15, 199 9, a ge nts e xe cu te d se ve ra l se ar chw ar rants a t l oc at ion s associated with Riley , including Clay ’ s residence at 1030 Ly nwood Drive, Mon tgo m er

y , A la ba m a. T he a ge nts a lso se ar ch ed Ri le y ’ s st as h ho use a t 17 02 Fr en chS tr ee t, Mo ntg om er y , A la ba m a, and R ile y ’ s m ai n a ddr es s a t 57 13 Po rt sm outh D ri ve , Mo ntg om er y , A la ba m a. A ge nts se iz ed

se ve ra l f ir earm s f ro m6

e a c h o f th e s e l o c a t i o n s ( i
. e . , tw o f r o m C l a y’ s r e s i d e n c e , e i g h tf r o m R i l e y’ s h o me res id en ce, an d fo urfro m

Ril ey ’s st as h h ou se ). The e vidence produced at trial dem onstrated that Clay wa s the subs criber fo r the te le phon e that R ile y use d to c ondu ct

his dr ug tra ff ic kin g bu sin es s f

ro m 1996 to 1999 thr oughw hic h R ile y pos se sse d and d istri but ed tho usands of

pounds of m ar ij uana , m or e than f

if ty gr am s of c oc ai ne ba se , and f

our kil ogr am s of

c oc ai ne hy dr oc hlo ri de
. D ur ing the tr ia l, the gov er nm en t a lso pr es en te d th e te sti m ony of
co -c onsp ir at or

Ro de ri ck Bl an din g ( “ Bl an din g” ), w ho t es tif ie d th at he w orke d f

or Ri le y . Accor di ng to Bla nd in g, Cl ay was o ne of R il ey ’s reg ul ar cu st om ers .
II. ISS UES 1 . Wh et h erth e d i s t ri ct co u rt erre di n co n cl u d i n g th at th e p ro s ec u t o r’s
co m m en t s b ef o re th e g ra n dju ry d i dn o ts ub s t an t i al l y i n fl u en ce th e g ra n dju ry’s decision to return the superseding ind ictm ent in this case. 2. Whe the r the e vid en ce w as suf fi ci en t t o su sta in C lay ’ s c onvi ct ionf or the unl aw fu l us e of

ac om m uni catio n f

ac ili ty , to w it, ate le phon e, in vio la tio n of 21 U. S. C. § 843 (b).7

3. Whether drug quantit y becom es an elem ent of the offense under fe deral dr ug tra ff ic kin g st at

ute s on ly w he n it m ay be use d to im

pose ase nte nc e ab ove the
ap p l i c ab l e s t a tu t o ry ma x i mu m. CROSS-APPEAL 1. Whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed c le ar e rr or w he n it ove rr ule d th e gove rn m en t’ s ob

j ec tio n to e nhanc e Cl ay ’ s of fe nse le ve l by

tw o po int s be ca

use C l a y’s c o - c o n s p i r a t o r s p o s s e s s e dd a n g e r o u s we ap o n s du r i n g th e dr u g c o n s p i r a c y.
III. STA ND AR

DS OF RE VIEW T his c ourt r ev ie w s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of ade fe ndant’ s m oti on t o dism iss an ind ictm ent based on pros ecutorial m iscondu ct before the grand jury
un de r an ab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ard
. U nit ed Sta tes v . W

ald on , 363 F . 3d 1 103, 1108 (11th Cir. 20 04 ).

“ Whe t h erth e r ec o rdco n t ai n s s u ff i ci en tev i d en ce t o s up p o rt th e ju ry’s
ve rd ic t i s aque sti on o f lawsub j ec t t o de novo review .” United States v. T o , 144 F. 3d 7 37, 743 ( 11th C ir
. 199 8)
. Whe n c ondu ct ing ar ev ie wof the r ec or d, thi s co urt vi ew s th e ev ide nc e in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the gov er

nm en t and
re s o l v es al l re as o n ab l e i n fe re n ce s an dcr ed i b i l i t y ev al u at i o n s i n fa v o r o f t h e ju ry’s
ve rd ic t. Id

. T his c ourt “ m

ust uph old the j ur y ’ s ve rd ic t whe ne ve r a re as ona bleApprendi v. New Je rsey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. C t. 2348, 147 L . Ed. 2d 435 (2000)
. 1 8 fa ct fi nde r co uld

c onc lud e that the e vid en ce e sta bli she s gu ilt

be y ond a re as ona

ble doub t.” Id

. a t 74 3- 44. Thi s co ur t wi ll rev ie w de novo appeals alleging error in an indictm ent under A ppre ndi , bu t we wi ll rev ers e o nl y forha rm fu l erro r. United States v. Sanchez , 1 26 9 F .3d12 50 , 12 72 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (en ba nc ). “A ppre ndierr or is constitu tional
er ro r, sub j ec t t o harm le ss o r pla in e rr or r ev ie wde pe ndi ng o n th e tim ing of the constitu tional ob

j ection.” Id

. CROSS-APPEAL W e re vie wf

or c le ar e rr or the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ind ing s of

f ac t r eg ar din g whether a defe ndant sh ouldrec eive an enhanced sentence under the U nited States Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . U nit ed Sta tes v . G all o , 195 F. 3d 12 78, 1280 (11t h Cir. 1999 ).

IV . A N A LY SI S A ft er r ev ie w ing the r ec or d, r ea din g th e part ie s’ br ie fs , and h av ing the be ne fi t of or al arg um en t, w e af

fi rm iss ue s on e an d tw o of

Cl ay ’ s a ppe al w ith outSee 11th Cir. R. 36-1. 2 9 furthe r dis cu ssi on. W e fe el c om pe lle d, how ev er , to ad dr es s C lay ’ s dr ug quanti ty 2 is su e an d t he go ve rn m en t’s cr os s- ap pe al sen te nc e en ha nc em en t i ss ue . A. D rug Quant ity Cl ay arg ue s, f or the f ir st t im e on a

ppe al , that hi s c onvi ct ionsho uld be
re ve rs ed be ca use the j ur

y that un an im ousl y

f ound him gui lty of be ing am em

be r of
a dr ug c onsp ir ac y

c oul d no t un an im ousl y

a gr ee that the a m ount

of dr ugs al le ge d in the sup er se din g in dic tm en t sh oul d be a ttr ibu te d to him
. W e ha ve he ld tha t a de fe ndant who h as not

pr es en te d hi s ob

j ec tio n to the dis tr ic t c ourt m ust sho wpla in
erro r on di rect ap pe al
. U nit ed Sta tes v . H

ass on , 333 F. 3d 12 63, 1276 (11t h Cir. 2003 ). T hus, the de fe ndant m ust sho w( 1) that an e rr or

oc curr ed , ( 2) that i s pl ai n, an d (3 ) th ataffe ct s s ub st an ti al rig ht s. Id
. Cl ay c ont en ds tha t hi s c onsp ir ac y c onvi ct ionsho uld

be r ev er se d be ca

use the j ur y c oul d no t un an im ousl y

a gr ee that the a m ount

of dr ugs al le ge d inthe supe rs ed ing ind ic tm en t sh oul d be a ttr ibu te d to Cl ay . N o auth or ity sup ports this A ppre ndi -related contentio n, and m ost of Clay ’ s argum ent is noth ing m ore than an atta ck on this Co urt’ s ho ldi ng i n Sanchez
. C lay r ec ei ve d a50- m onth se nte nc e fo r vio la tin g § 8 41( b) (1 )( D ), w he n th e m ax im um se nte nc e that st at

uto ry pr ovi sio n se ts for the sm allest quantityof drugs is 60 m onth s. Under Sanchez , no e rr or oc curr ed
.10

Cl ay r ec ogni ze s th at

in Sanchez , w e he ld tha t dr ug ty pe and quanti ty

are not re qui re d to be a lle ge d inthe ind ic tm en t, sub m itt ed to the j ur y , and p ro ve d be y ond
a rea so nabl e d ou bt , as l on g a s t he st atut ory m ax im um pu ni sh m en t i s n ot ex ceed ed
. See Sanchez , 26 9 F .3dat 1 26 8 (“ To re pe atth e o ft- rep eat ed , A ppre ndie xpl ic itl y lim ite d it s ho ldi ng t o f

ac ts ‘ that i nc re as e[ ] the pe na lty f or ac ri m e be y ond the pr es cri be d s ta tu to ry

m ax im um .’ There fo re, A

ppre ndiha s no e ff

ec t onc as es in
w hic h ade fe ndant’ s a ct

ua l se nte nc e fa lls w ith in the r an ge pr es cr ibe d by the statut e for the cr im e of conviction.”). Clay ’ s contentio n is that because the jur y wa s asked to ascertain the quantityof drugs for w hich he was a ccountable and was
una ble to unanim ousl y

a gr ee on tha t, the gov er

nm en t f ai le d to m ee t i ts b ur de n of pr ovi ng e ve ry

e le m en t of

the c harg e be y ond a re as ona ble doubt. T he f

lawin Clay ’ s reasoning is th at the specific quantity of drugs for w hich he was
acco un tabl e is no t an ele m en t o f th e cri m e ch arg ed
. See U nited Sta tes v. Matthews , 168 F. 3d 12 34, 1245 (11t h Cir. 1999 ). U nder Sanchez , spe ci fi catio n of quantit y does not b ecom e essential unless the am ount of the drugs inv olved is u sed to i nc re as e the de fe ndant’ s se nte nc e be y ond the appl ic ab le m ax im um pe na lty f or the sm al le st d et ec ta

ble quanti ty . I n th is c as e it w as not . H ad the dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed Cl ay to a te rm of im pr iso nm en t a

bove the 60 -m on th m ax im

um foran y de te ct ab le qu an ti ty of drug s, see § 8 41 (b )(1 )(A)11

(m ax im um se nte nc e of

li fe if 100 0 kg or

m or e of m ar ij uana ); § 84 1( b) (1 )( B) ( 40- y ear m axim

um if m ore than 100 of m arij uana), Clay would have a point un der A ppre ndi
. H ow ev er , r ec ogni zi ng tha t the f ai lur e of the j ur y to ag re e on a

spe ci fi c drug quan tity

lim ited the ty

pe of sentence it could im pose on Clay , the district
co urt se nte nc ed

him to onl y 50 m onths, w hic h is be lowthe 60- m onth m ax im um that he c oul d have r ec ei ve d purs uant t o § 8 41( b) (1 )( D ). T he re fo re , in lig ht o f our re as oni ng i n Sanchez , the 50- m onth se nte nc e w as in the pe rm iss ibl e range and the di st ric t co ur t d idno t p la in ly err. Se e als o U nit ed Sta tes v . R ic hard

s , 302 F . 3d 5 8, 66 (2d Cir. 2002) (“ [D ] rug quantit y becom es an elem ent of the offense under § 841 onl y w he re it m ay be use d to im

pose ase nte nc e ab ove the statut or y m ax im um sentence” beca

use “ the constitu tional rule of A ppre ndidoe s no t a

ppl y w he re the
se nte nc e im

pose d is not

gr eate r than th e pr es cr ibe d m ax im um f or the of fe nse of
co nv ic ti on ”). B. C ro ss- A pp ea l – En ha nc em en t U nd er U . S. S. G. § 2D 1. 1( b) (1 ) D ur ing the tr ia l, the gov er nm en t pr es en te d e vid en ce that i n Ju ly 199 9, pur suant t o ase ar chw ar

rant, auth or iti es se iz ed

dr ugs an d vari ous fi re ar

m s f ro m Ri le y ’ s F re nc h S tr ee t r es ide nc e. Auth or iti es a lso se iz ed num er ous fi re ar

m s f ro m Ri le y ’ s m ai n r es ide nc e loc at ed a t P ortsm outh D ri ve . I nf orm at ionr eg ar din g th e search of Clay ’ s residence, however, wa s not presented at trial because the district12

co ur t p rev io us ly hadgra nt edCla y ’s m ot io n t o s up pr es s t he sea rch of h is res id en ce. T he gov er

nm en t a lso pr es en te d B landi ng’ s te sti m ony that he ha d pa sse d ou t dr ugs fo r R i l ey an dth at , b et we en 1 9 9 6 an d1 9 9 9 , C l ay h ad p i ck ed up dru g s at Ri l ey’s Fr en chS tr ee t r es ide nc e on a w ee kly ba sis
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt, how ev er , la te r fo und at the sentencing hearing that Blandin g’ s testim ony wa s not fullycre dible, part ic ularl y

w ithr eg ar d to the num

be r of dr ug transa ct ion s be tw ee n C lay and Bl an di ng , “be cau se of t he way he tes ti fie d.” [R-2 6 a t 1 6- 17 ]. A t se nte nc ing , the gov er

nm en t ob j ec te d to the pr es en te nc e inv es tig at ion
re port’ s f ai lur e to r ec om

m en d atw o po int

e nhanc em en t t o th e of

fe nse le ve l f

or poss es sio n of

af ir earm . T he gov er

nm en t e xpl ai ne d th at

f ir earm s w er e se iz ed

f ro m t h e c l o s e to f

C l ay’ s r e s i d e n c e du r i n g as e a r c h w a rr a n t , an dth a t , a l t h o u g h th e i t e ms se iz ed w er e supp re sse d be fo re tr ia l, inf orm at ionr eg ar din g th em

w as a dm iss ibl e for sentencing purpo ses. T he governm ent also reasoned that Riley possess ed fi re ar m s a t hi s F re nc h S tr ee t r es ide nc e, the “ sta sh h ouse f or the dr ugs, ” w he re , it
as se rt ed , Cl ay

r ec ei ve d dr

ugs fo r dis tr ibu tio n. T he dis tr ic t c ourt ov er ru le d th e gove rn m en t’ s ob

j ec tio n. T he c ourt f

ound that i t w as c le ar ly

im pr oba ble that the fi re ar m s f ound in the c los et

of Cl ay ’ s r es ide nc e w er e co nne ct ed to the of fe nse of convictio n. T he court also found th at the fire arm s found in Riley ’ s residence w ere no t re as on ab ly fores eeab le to Cla y .13

O n a ppe al , the gov er

nm en t arg ue s th at

the f ir earm s f ound a t c o- co nspi rator Ri le y ’ s F re nc h S tr ee t r es ide nc e an d P ortsm outh D ri ve r es ide nc e w er e re as ona bly fo re se ea ble to Cl ay , a sse rt ing that po sse ssi on o f fi re ar m s is ac om

m on t ool of

the dr ug tra ff ic kin g tr ad e. T he gov er

nm en t a lso c ont en ds tha t C lay qua lif ie s f or the fi re ar m e nhanc em en t be ca

use ( 1) the c onsp ir ac y

inv olv ed asig nif ic an t am ount

of drugs; (2) during the conspiracy , C lay repeatedly

picked up drug s from

the Fre nch Stree t residence, wher e fire arm s wer e found; (3) Clay subscribed to a ce llular telephone that Riley

used to cond uct his drug traff icking b usiness ; and (4) Clay po ss es se d t wo fi rear m s at hi s re si de nc e fro m wher e h e d is cu ss eddru gs wit h R il ey . Cl ay r es pond s th at

his r ole w as sim

ply to pr ovi de c el lul ar

te le phon e se rv ic e to Ri le y ; t hu s, t he fir earm s wer e n ot for es eeab le to hi m . Un d erU.S .S .G. § 2 D1 .1 (b )( 1 ), th e c o u rt m ay ad ju s tup wa rda d ef

en d an t ’s b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l b y t w o l e v e l s “[ i ]f ad a n g e r o u s w e ap o n ( i n c l u d i n g af i r e a rm)
wa s poss essed . .
. .” “ The a djustm ent shou ld be applied if the weapon wa s pr es en t, unl es s it

is cl earl y im pr oba ble that the w ea

pon w as c onne ct ed

w iththe of fe nse . ” U . S. S. G
. § 2D 1. 1, c om m en t. ( n. 3)
. I n or de r fo r a dis tr ic t c ourt t o a ppl y a§ 2 D 1
. 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) e n h a n c e me n tb a s e do n ac o - c o n s p i r a t o r ’s p o s s e s s i o n o f af i r e a rm, the gov er nm en t m ust pr ove by apr ep onde ra

nc e of the e vid en ce that “ (1 ) the poss es sor of the f ir earm w as ac o- co nspi rator , ( 2) the pos se ssi on w as in14

furtherance of the conspiracy , ( 3) the defendant wa s a m em ber of the conspiracy

at th e ti m e o f po ss es si on , and ( 4) the c o- co nspi rator [’ s] pos se ssi on w as r ea sona bly foresee able by

the defendant.” G all o , 195 F . 3d at 12 84. T he onl y f ac tor a t i ssu e h e r e i s th e f

o u rt h , r e a s o n a

b l e f o r e s e e ab i l i t y. A ft er r ev ie w ing the r ec or d, w e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c le ar ly e rr in fin di ng th atRil ey ’s po ss es si on of t he fir earm s was no t fo res eeab le to Cla y . Bl an din g ha d st at ed

in anint er

vie wthat C lay

r eg ularl y pic ke d up dr

ugs at the

“ sta sh h ouse ;” how ev er , the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound that B landi ng’ s te sti m ony w as not fully cre dible because of the way in which he testified. “ W e acc ord great defere nce to the district court’ s credibility determ ination s.” United States v. G re gg , 179 F . 3d 1 312, 131 6 ( 11th C ir
. 199 9)
. Whil e w e ha ve r ec ogni ze d, a s th e gove rn m en t a sse rt s, that “ [t ] he re is a fr eque nt and o ve rp ow er ing c onne ct ion betwee n the use of firearm s and narcotics traff ic,” U nit ed Sta tes v . Cr uz , 805 F . 2d 14 64 , 14 74 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ), w e hol d th at abse nt s om e spe ci fi c co nne ct ion be tw ee n th e fi re ar

m s and the part ic ular dr

ug a ct ivi ty , the dis tr ic t c ourt i s no t co m pe lle d to f

ind that the § 2D 1. 1( b) (1 ) en hanc em en t a ppl ie s. Fi na lly , w e not e that U

nit ed Sta tes v . F

re yr e- Lazar o , 3 F
. 3d 1 496, 150 6 (11th Cir. 1993), where w e found reasonable foresee ability of possessio n of a
we apon bya co-c onsp irator w here the c o-conspirator transported thi rteen15

ki lo gr am s o f co cai ne is in ap po si te . F re yr e- Lazar o pr ed at es G all o , which added t h e f o re s ee ab i l i t y fa ct o r t o th e § 2 D1 .1 (d )( 1 ) a n al ysi s b as ed o n a c o -c o n s p i ra t o r’s poss es sio n. Mo re ove r, a lth ough F re yr e- Lazar o inv olv ed

alarg e am ount

of
co ca ine , nothin g inthe de ci sio n in dic at es that the a m ount of dr ugs w as a co nsi de ratio n f

or thi s e nhanc em en t. Whil e the gov er nm en t a tte m

pts to al so attr ibu te to Cl ay

the f ir earm s f ound in Ri le y ’ s P ortsm outh D ri ve r es ide nc e, the gove rn m en t f

ai ls t o e xpl ai n ho wthe se f ir earm s w er e fo re se ea

ble to Cl ay , and n o evidence exists conn ecting Clay to the firear

m s found in that residence. W ithr eg ar d to the f

ir earm s f ound in the c los et

of Cl ay ’ s r es ide nc e, the governm ent fails to challenge on appeal the district court’s f indin g that it was im probable that the firear

m s wer e connected to the drug consp iracy offense,
ex ce pt t o a sse rt

that C lay use d th e te le phon e at

his ow n r es ide nc e to d isc uss dr ugs w ithRi le y . H ow ev er , no e vid en ce e xis ts tha t dr ug- re la te d ob

j ec ts w er e fo und in pr oxi m ity of the f ir earm s. B y

c ontra st, in United States v. H all , 46 F
. 3d 6 2 ( 11th Ci r. 19 95 ), we affi rm edth e ap pl ic at io n o f th e en ha nc em en t wh ere aset of s cal es , a zi plo ck ba g w ithc oc ai ne r es idu e, and a pur se c ont ai nin g $1 2, 000 w er e fo und in a bedroom , a long with a handgun foun d in a dresser draw er next to an undeterm ined
am ount of c as h, in a hous e w he re c onve rs at ion s c onc er nin g th e m ar ij uana im porta tio n oc curr ed
. 46 F. 3d at 63 -6 4. W e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt di d16

n o tcl ea rl y err i n fi n d i n g th at i twa s i m p ro b ab l e t h at th e f

i re ar m s fo u n di n Cl ay’s
re sid en ce w er e co nne ct ed to the of fe nse . A cc or din gly , w e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c le ar ly e rr in re fu sin g to im

pose atw o- le ve l e nhanc em en t un de r U.S.S.G. § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ). Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m Cla y ’s con vi ct io ns an d s en te nc es . AFFIRMED.