See Rhind, 289 F.3d at 695. We, however, noted that in other guidelines sections involving the phrase “in connection with” we gave the phrase an expansive interpretation and rejected the notion that a firearm must facilitate the underlying offense to trigger application of the four-level enhancement. Id. (citing United States v. Young, 115 F.3d 834 (11th Cir.1997)). We held, in interpreting analogous guideline provisions, that, in circumstances where it was reasonable to assume that the defendant possessed a firearm to prevent the theft of property related to the underlying offense, mere possession of a firearm could be enough to satisfy the “in connection with” requirement. United States v. Jackson, 276 F.3d 1231, 1234 (11th Cir.2001) (citations omitted); see Rhind, 289 F.3d at 695 (<HOLDING>). Additionally, we held that a firearm that was
holding that it is reasonable to conclude that the presence of firearms in a vehicle protected counterfeit money from theft during the execution of a counterfeit felony holding that it is a violation of the fourth amendment for police to bring members of the media or other third parties into a home during the execution of a warrant when the presence of third parties in the home was not in aid of the execution of the warrant holding that defendants auto theft conviction could serve to support his conviction for auto theft as a class c felony and as a prior unrelated felony conviction under the habitual offender statute holding that conviction for unauthorized use of vehicle merges with conviction for theft of same vehicle holding that it is the use not marketing of firearms that is dangerous