(“The adjustment should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense.”). In deciding whether the government satisfied its initial burden, the defendant’s relevant conduct includes “acts that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction.” Stallings, 463 F.3d at 1220 (citation and internal quotations omitted). Moreover, in the context of a conspiracy case such as Gunn’s, the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement may be applied “if the firearm[ ] [is] found in a place where acts in furtherance of the conspiracy took place.” United States v. Pham, 463 F.3d 1239, 1246 (11th Cir.2006) (per curiam) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Hansley, 54 F.3d 709, 716 (11th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Here, the district court properly concluded
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 to apply the firearm enhancement the firearm need only reflect the context of the defendants possession and the defendants ability to use the firearm to promote the controlled substance offense holding that the defendant on remand may show his eligibility for the safety valve reduction by a preponderance of the evidence even where a  2d11b1 enhancement applied holding that the  2d11b1 enhancement was proper where a firearm and drugrelated items were found in the defendants residence where he had also engaged in conspiratorial conversations holding that government met its burden with evidence that agents found a firearm and other drugrelated items in the defendants house where defendant engaged in conspiratorial conversations