1 The Honorable Raymond C. Clevenger, III, Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-3534

___________ United States of America, *
* Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Muhammad Queadir Abdul-Ahad, * also known as Mohammad Queadir * [UNPUBLISHED] Abdul-Ahad, *
* Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 14, 2010 Filed: June 22, 2010

___________ Before BYE, CLEVENGER, 1 and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Muhammad Queadir Abdul-Ahad pleaded gu ilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute at least five kilograms but less than fifteen kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(a) and 846, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, in viol ation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(h) , (a)(1)(A)(I) and (a)(1)(B)(I)-2 The Honorable David S. Doty, United Stat es District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

3 The home was the residence of Abdul-Ahad's mother, Chiffon Williams. Testimony presented at the sentencing hearing sufficiently associates Abdul-Ahad with this residence.
-2- (ii). The district court 2sentenced him to the mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months. Abdul-Ahad appeals his sentence contending the district court erred in applying a two-level enhancement under United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (U.S.S.G) § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a dangerous weapon in connection with the offense. He appeals because, absent th e dangerous weapon enhancement, he may be eligible for safety valve relief unde r 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.
At the sentencing hearing, Special Agent David Voth testified that information gathered during his investigation determin ed the "headquarters" of this narcotics trafficking conspiracy located on Cedar Av enue South Minneapolis (Cedar residence) was associated 3 with Abdul-Ahad. A search warrant of this residence in 2003 uncovered firearms and ammunition. Ag ent Voth explained the 2003 warrant was obtained because an informant, who was w illing to testify at trial, saw Abdul-Ahad with three firearms at this location. Agen t Voth also described testimony given to the federal grand jury by two w itnesses who met with Abdul-A had in a back alley behind the Cedar residence in 2006 to obtain "cocaine and/or crack cocaine." One witness testified he observed Abdul-A had with a firearm. In 2007, police discovered cocaine, marijuana, ammunition, and other material s used for drug trafficking at the same residence.
We review the district court's appli cation of the sentencing guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Lopez , 416 F.3d 713, 715 (8th Cir. 2005). For a § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancemen t to be warranted "the government must simply show that it is not clearly improbable that the weapon was connected to the-3- drug offense." United States v. Peroceski , 520 F.3d 886, 889 (8th Cir. 2008). In the present case, there was suffici ent evidence for the district court to apply the two level enhancement. In 2003, a search warrant at Cedar residence uncovered firearms and ammunition. The search warrant in 2007 disclosed cocaine, marijuana, ammunition, and other materials used for drug trafficki ng. Although the guns and drugs were never found within direct proximity to one another, witness tes timony placed Abdul-Ahad selling drugs in the back alley and in possession of firearms at the residence during the course of the conspiracy. Based on these facts, the district court did not clearly err in finding the firearms were connected to the drug offense. See United States v. Jones , 195 F.3d 379, 384 (8th Cir. 1999) (stati ng "[i]t is enough if a gun is found in the same location where drugs or drug paraphern alia were stored, or where part of the conspiracy took place") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); See also United States v. Martinez , 557 F.3d 597, 600 (8th Cir. 2009) (witness testimony was sufficient evidence for the district court to impose the two-level enhancement).
Abdul-Ahad also argues the district court erred because it relied on the testimony of witnesses who were not credib le. On appeal, "a district court's determination as to the credibility of a w itness is virtually unreviewable." United States v. Heath , 58 F.3d 1271, 1275 (8th Cir. 1995). Cl ear error is almost never found unless extrinsic evidence makes the testim ony so "inconsistent or implausible on its face that a reasonable fact-finder would not credit it." Id. We conclude the credibility assessment of the district court was not clear error.

We affirm.

______________________________