it was unlikely that these drugs were connected with the firearms. If someone had broken into the defendant’s house, the court has to ask itself, would the defendant — could the defendant have gotten to that firearm quickly to use the firearm to protect his drug stash or perhaps parate safe from that which housed a majority of the guns, we cannot ignore the type and quantity of guns found. Moore did not merely possess a hunting rifle or two. See Hardin, 248 F.3d at 496 (“There could be a factual scenario ... where the firearm is an unloaded hunting rifle located in a closet, and the enhancement might not apply.”). Rather, Moore possessed twenty-eight firearms, including short-barreled rifles, several semiautomatic weapons, and three illegal machine guns. See Huffman, 461 F.3d at 788 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Wyatt, 102 F.3d 241, 243
holding that the key factor in determining the applicability of section 1981 to an employee who spends time abroad is the relevant work station holding that previous sworn statements made by a plaintiff in his request for disability benefits is a material factor for the court to consider in determining whether he is entitled to ada relief holding that additional consideration is a factor in determining whether there is an implied contract of employment holding that the application of the enhancement for using a firearm in connection with another felony offense is proper only if there is a clear connection between the firearm that was used in the other offense and the one that was used in the offense of conviction holding that a relevant factor to consider in determining the applicability of the fortress theory is whether the type of firearm found in that case an automatic assault rifle is one that is commonly used by drug dealers