officer saw the weapon as soon as he took a step or two into the kitchen. But the court did not say that expressly, and neither did the testimony. All that Mara-diaga said was that Moon found the gun “on top of the refrigerator,” App. 102; Moon did not himself testify. Moreover, although there was evidence that the apartment was small and that the kitchen was “adjacent” to the dining room, there were no findings or testimony regarding the details of the apartment’s layout: we do not know how far it was from the dining room table to the kitchen’s threshold or how far it was from that threshold to the refrigerator. Nor do we know whether the path to either location was direct or obstructed. Nor — because we do not know how, or how well, s v. Allen, 159 F.3d 832, 839-40 (4th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). Compare United States v. Silvestri, 787 F.2d
holding that claimant did not establish good cause because she erroneously thought the determination was not final holding that inevitability was not established by an officers testimony that if she had not mistakenly thought that the defendants bag had been abandoned she would have used her narcotics dog to sniff the bag and establish probable cause for a warrant holding that when the defendant asserted in her answer that she was not a tenant and that she had an equitable interest in the property ejectment not eviction was the proper remedy and the matter should have been transferred to the circuit court holding that substantial evidence did not support agencys finding fear speculative when petitioner had offered evidence that she had already had two children that she planned to have more that she had gone to great lengths to avoid being sterilized in china and that she had removed her iud after escaping to the united states holding that plaintiff must establish that had she learned of impairment during her pregnancy she would have terminated pregnancy