the fact that he was in possession of a handgun months later when he was captured by the police was merely “coincidental” to the offense and not “in connection with” it. But, as the Supreme Court has noted, escape from custody is a “continuing offense.” United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 413, 100 S.Ct. 624, 62 L.Ed.2d 575 (1980). McCargo’s admission that he acquired the gun for “protection” is therefore sufficient to show that he possessed it in connection with the felony — and that such possession was not merely coincidental. See Spurgeon, 117 F.3d at 644 (the “defendant’s own assertion that he had the weapon for protection” indicated that the possession of the firearm was in connection with a narcotics felony); see also United States v. Brown, 314 F.3d 1216, 1224 (10th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the enhancement was appropriate.
holding that an escape from custody under minnesota law is a crime of violence holding that in light of our recognition that escape presents a continuing threat of violence until the escapee is safely returned to custody we hold that for purposes of  2k21b5 every escape is sufficiently continuing such that possession of a gun subsequent to the initial departure from custody can qualify as being in connection with the escape holding that necessity defense to escape did not require defendant to turn herself in and that escape is not a continuing offense holding that escape from secure custody is a violent felony holding felony escape in north carolina to be crime of violence under acca because escape presents risk of injury to others