context: This circuit has consistently held that in order for SS 2D1.1(b)(1) to apply, the government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a dangerous weapon was present when the crimes ioere committed, and that it was not clearly improbable that the weapon had some nexus with the criminal activity.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 44 F.3d 673, 674
citation_a.parenthetical: holding enhancement not appropriate because firearms were seized from defendant's home thirty-seven days after last known drug sale occurred
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Shields, 44 F.3d 673, 674 (8th Cir.1995) (holding enhancement not appropriate because firearms were seized from defendant’s home thirty-seven days after last known drug sale occurred).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 968 F.2d 729, 731-33
citation_b.parenthetical: holding enhancement not appropriate because of two and one-half month lapse between the criminal activity and the discovery of the weapons, and no evidence that weapons were present when defendant committed charged offense
citation_b.sentence: See also United States v. Bost, 968 F.2d 729, 731-33 (8th Cir.1992) (holding enhancement not appropriate because of two and one-half month lapse between the criminal activity and the discovery of the weapons, and no evidence that weapons were present when defendant committed charged offense).