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also known as Mohammad Queadir * [UNPUBLISHED]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 guilty 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 violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(h), (a)(1)(A)(I) and (a)(1)(B)(I)-
2

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States 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 court2

 sentenced 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 the dangerous weapon enhancement, he may be

eligible for safety valve relief under 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 determined the "headquarters" of this narcotics

trafficking conspiracy located on Cedar Avenue South Minneapolis (Cedar residence)

was associated3

 with Abdul-Ahad. A search warrant of this residence in 2003

uncovered firearms and ammunition. Agent Voth explained the 2003 warrant was

obtained because an informant, who was willing to testify at trial, saw Abdul-Ahad

with three firearms at this location. Agent Voth also described testimony given to the

federal grand jury by two witnesses who met with Abdul-Ahad in a back alley behind

the Cedar residence in 2006 to obtain "cocaine and/or crack cocaine." One witness

testified he observed Abdul-Ahad with a firearm. In 2007, police discovered cocaine,

marijuana, ammunition, and other materials used for drug trafficking at the same

residence.

We review the district court's application 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) enhancement 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 sufficient 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 trafficking. Although the guns and drugs were never

found within direct proximity to one another, witness testimony 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) (stating "[i]t is enough if a gun is found in

the same location where drugs or drug paraphernalia 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 credible. On appeal, "a district court's

determination as to the credibility of a witness is virtually unreviewable." United

States v. Heath, 58 F.3d 1271, 1275 (8th Cir. 1995). Clear error is almost never found

unless extrinsic evidence makes the testimony 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.

______________________________