[the gun] and she did not report it stolen,” she ‘‘did not know he would take the gun” on the night in question. There is no indication in the record that Chambers received his girlfriend’s consent—whether explicit or implicit—to take the gun, and thus the only evidence before us suggests that Chambers “did not have access to [the] gun, absent engaging in conduct tantamount to taking it dishonestly or secretly.” Thornton, 2015 WL 4567780, at *7. Because the record suggests that Chambers’s girlfriend “was deprived of possession of the gun-without [her] consent,” Herman, 1996 WL 621028, at *1, and-in light of the binding authority of Jackson, we defer to the district court’s application of the enhancement in this case. Cf. United States v. Bates, 584 F.3d 1105, 1109 (8th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). IV For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the
holding that use of gun was attributable to defendant who aided and abetted armed robbery but never personally carried gun holding that because the repose period in question was eliminated before it expired it never operated to insulate defendants from liability and never vested defendants with any substantive rights 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 holding that evidence was sufficient to prove defendant constructively possessed the gun where although defendant denied ownership of the gun it was found near a knife of which defendant claimed ownership and where defendant was aware of the presence of the gun recognizing that a broad definition of stolen is consistent with the guidelines purposes and finding that the enhancement was properly applied where a defendant found a gun that was lost or mislaid by its owner who never authorized anyone to take the gun never sold it and never gave it away as a gift