scheme or plan as the offense of conviction.’ ” (quoting U.S.S.G. § lB1.3(a)(2))). Here, the government carried its burden of demonstrating that Devine possessed the firearms during the course of his drug dealing, and Devine has not established that it was “clearly improbable” that the weapons were connected to the drug dealing. Thus, the district court did not err in applying the two-level enhancement. First, the evidence establishes that De-vine constructively possessed the guns. See United States v. Hertular, 562 F.3d 433, 447 (2d Cir.2009) (noting enhancement applies where defendant constructively possesses dangerous weapon (citing United States v. Herrera, 446 F.3d 283, 287 (2d Cir.2006))). Not only did he admit ownership, but the guns were kept next to his 63 (2d Cir. 1994) (<HOLDING>). Second, the government having met its initial
holding enhancement applicable where the record supported conclusion that drugs were stored and cut in the same location as the guns even though a search of the location yielded no drugs 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 other than location of the drugs state presented evidence establishing direct connection between drugs and accused thereby creating inference of control holding the district court did not clearly err in applying the enhancement where guns were found on the same premises from which the defendant trafficked drugs and were readily accessible to the defendant holding that evidence of the defendants connection to the guns suggests possession of the drugs found next to the guns