that a defendant “had both the gun and the cocaine on his person, or that he was holding the gun while selling the cocaine, or that he confessed that he was using the gun to protect the cocaine.” Id. at 495. As defense counsel has acknowledged, the firearm was accessible to someone in the bed or within the bedroom. Nor has this Court “read the term ‘in connection with’ to require additional evidence beyond that presented here.” Id. Rather, in this case, as in Hardin, “it cannot be denied that the bedroom was the stash location for the cocaine, and that a readily accessible firearm was there if needed to protect the cocaine.” Id. at 500. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the district court appropriately applied the four-level enhancement pursuant to § 2K2.1(b)(6). Id. (<HOLDING>); U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6), n. 14(B)
holding evidence insufficient for conviction of possession of marijuana amphetamines and barbiturates when those drugs were not found on the person of or in the same room as the defendant but were only found on other people on the premises holding that the fortress theory was applicable where it reasonably appeared that the gun was used to protect the drugs given that the drugs and firearm were found in the same location 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 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 a defendant exercised control over a firearm that was found in a vehicle he was driving