basement because all the tenants in the building had access to the basement. We disagree. Factual determinations made in the course of sentencing must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. McDonald, 121 F.3d 7, 9 (1st Cir.1997). While there must be a certain nexus between the weapon and the offense for the enhancement to apply, it is well settled in this circuit that “when the weapon’s location makes it readily available to protect either the participants themselves during the commission of the illegal activity or the drugs and cash involved in the drug business, there will be sufficient evidence to connect the weap on(s) to the offense conduct.” Id. at 10 (quoting United States v. Corcimiglia, 967 F.2d 724, 727 (1st Cir.l992)(internal quotations omitted)(<HOLDING>)). Tucker was arrested at his home with a
holding that the twolevel enhancement was appropriate where the gun cash and a drug ledger were found in one apartment and the drugs were found in a different apartment in the same building holding that the fortress theory was applicable where it reasonably appeared that the gun was used to protect the drugs given that the drugs and firearm were found in the same location holding that the twolevel enhancement was appropriate where drugs cash and drug scales were found in defendants parlor and a gun was found in a secret compartment in defendants bathroom vanity holding that gun found in unreachable secret compartment in vehicle was carried holding direct testimony tying a defendant to a gun was not required when the gun was found in the defendants truck and when the defendant had both ammunition for the gun and a rack in which it could have been kept