under § 501.2(a), the district court’s refusal to apply such a reduction on an erroneous ground was harmless. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment and defendant’s sentence. 1 . Additionally, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(6) would afford a decrease in the defendant's base offense level by two increments if he were to satisfy § 5C1.2(a). 2 . To the extent that defendant’s arguments, both below and on appeal, reference the use of a firearm — rather than the possession of a firearm — , we will treat those arguments as pertaining only to possession since, under § 5C1.2(a)'s express language, a defendant need only possess — not use — a firearm in connection with the offense to be ineligible for the "safety valve” reduction. Cf. United States v. Kincaide, 145 F.3d 771, 784 (6th Cir. 1998) (<HOLDING>). 3 .The district court increased defendant’s
holding that use of deadly weapon extends as well to any employment of a deadly weapon even its simple possession if such possession facilitates the associated felony holding that mere possession of a dangerous weapon is insufficient to support a charge of robbery with a dangerous weapon holding in part that the information did not charge actual possession where it alleged that the defendant carried displayed used threatened or attempted to use any weapon or firearm holding that possession of a weapon is not in an of itself a crime holding that the prerequisite of possession under ussg  2d11b1 does not require that one actually use or carry the weapon