a felony record, and that his possession of the firearm was therefore unlawful. Accordingly, the supervisor instructed the agent who had discovered the weapon to seize it. The court upheld the seizure of the weapon, reasoning that “although the agent who actually seized the weapon pursuant to the supervising agent’s instructions had no personal knowledge that Wells was a convicted felon, it is sufficient that the agents collectively had probable cause to believe the weapon was evidence of a crime at the time of its seizure.” 98 F.3d at 810. Thus, in Wells as in Menon, the agent whose information supported the seizure was a member of the search team and was inside of the premises being searched at the time of the seizure. See also United States v. Robinson, 756 F.2d 56 (8th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Blakeney, 753 F.2d 152
holding that to enhance a sentence because of the defendants use of a firearm the jury must find the defendant guilty of a crime involving a firearm or otherwise specifically find that a firearm was used holding that an enhancement for an express threat of death may not be applied to the sentence for robbery when the threat is related to the use of the firearm and the defendant has a  924c sentence for the same firearm holding that when agents executing a search warrant for narcotics came upon a firearm in plain view they properly detained the firearm for security reasons and that when the same agents at a later point in their search came upon documents indicating the resident had a felony record the firearm could lawfully be seized holding that to apply the firearm enhancement the firearm need only reflect the context of the defendants possession and the defendants ability to use the firearm to promote the controlled substance offense holding that subsequent discovery during same search of papers indicating defendant was on parole permitted agents to return to and seize a firearm they had previously observed in plain view