(including a firearm) was possessed”); id. at § 2D1.1, cmt. n. 3 (“The adjustment should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense.”); United States v. Ferryman, 444 F.3d 1183, 1186 (9th Cir.2006) (“[T]he burden is on the defendant to prove that it was clearly improbable that he possessed a firearm in connection with the offense.” (quotation marks omitted)). The district court’s sentence was also correct because this circuit’s established case law does not require a concrete temporal and spatial connection between the weapon, the drug trafficking and the defendant in order to trigger the two-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l). See United States v. Pitts, 6 F.3d 1366, 1373 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Stewart, 926 F.2d 899, 901
holding that mere possession of a dangerous weapon is insufficient to support a charge of robbery with a dangerous weapon holding that a defendant who had constructively possessed a shotgun that was owned by his brother and used solely for lawful sporting purposes was entitled to a reduction under ussg  2k21b2 holding that the defendants sentence had been improperly enhanced where there was no evidence that the defendant constructively possessed or exercised control over the weapon holding that a defendant possessed a dangerous weapon for purposes of ussg  2dllbl when law enforcement discovered a shotgun in the defendants home after the completion of the crimes holding that because defendant possessed a screwdriver during the bank robbery and a screwdriver is properly classified as a dangerous weapon the district court did not err by applying the enhancement to him regarding ussg  2b31b2e which applies if a dangerous weapon was brandished displayed or possessed