his money or even his life from a disgruntled or an unhappy drug buyer. It seems clear that these firearms were in such close proximity that they could have been used for that. Because we find that the government was able to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that these firearms were used in connection with Moore’s drug offense, we believe that the district court did not err in applying this enhancement. First, as the district judge noted, the guns were found not just in the same room, but in the same closet, just a few feet away from the marijuana. See Hardin, 248 F.3d at 498-99 (“The fact that the firearm was found in the same room where the [drugs] w[ere] stored can lead to the justifiable conclusion that the gun was used in connection with the felony.”); id. at 500 (<HOLDING>). While we realize that the marijuana was in a
holding that evidence was insufficient to prove a conspiracy where the evidence did not show that individuals who sold drugs to the defendant knew that the drugs were meant to be resold holding that the fortress theory applied where a firearm and marijuana were found on a night stand and cocaine was found in the same room as defendant had easy access to the firearm 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 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 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