and managed the other members of the conspiracy following her husband’s arrest. Guerra has not established that the district court clearly erred in imposing the three-level enhancement under § 3Bl.l(b). See id. She also argues that the district court erred when it applied the two-level weapons enhancement pursuant to § 2D1.1(b)(l). A district court’s determination that the § 2Dl.l(b)(l) weapons enhancement applies is also a factual finding reviewed for clear error. United States v. Zapata-Lara, 615 F.3d 388, 390 (5th Cir.2010). To support the enhancement, the Government must demonstrate a “temporal and spatial relationship [between] the weapon, the drug trafficking activity, and the defendant.” Id.; see also United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 766 (5th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). If the Government satisfies its burden, “the
holding intent may be inferred from large amount of marijuana holding in a ease of a reverse sting operation the use of a large amount of drugs did not amount to sentencing factor manipulation holding firearms large sums of cash  and uncharged quantities of illegal drugs are admissible to show a defendant is involved in the distribution of illegal drugs holding that a large amount of drugs increases the likelihood of weapons holding the large quantity of drugs sufficient evidence of intent to distribute