(upholding conviction as the Government established that the defendant “knew his co-conspirators were armed” and “acted with intent to assist or influence the commission of the underlying predicate crime”); United States v. Lowery, 60 F.3d 1199, 1202 (6th Cir.1995) (evidence of the defendant’s intent to commit bank robbery, combined with the knowledge that her accomplice was using and carrying her shotgun, permitted the jury to convict the defendant of aiding and abetting). Of particular relevance, a defendant may be convicted of aiding and abetting if he is present at the scene of the crime of violence during which his accomplice carries a firearm on the reasoning that the defendant thereby “associates” himself with the firearm. See Wright, 182 F.3d at 465; Rattigan, 151 F.3d at 558 (<HOLDING>); Morrow, 977 F.2d at 231 (defendant, who
holding that the defendant knew of his accomplices gun and benefitted from its presence for protection holding that the district court eired in applying the firearm enhancement where the government presented no evidence that the defendant possessed the gun or knew that the gun was located in the bottom of his codefendants backpack 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 a consent voluntary when a defendant who had been warned of his rights and knew police were investigating murders turned his gun over to a policeman who suggested that he could sell the gun for the defendant 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