PER CURIAM:
Rowland Harris appeals from his thirty-month sentence imposed pursuant to his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, he challenges his enhancement under
Section 2K2.1(b)(6) provides for a four-level enhancement if a defendant "used or possessed any firearm or ammunition in connection with another felony offense." Application Note 14(A) to § 2K2.1 states that subsection (b)(6) applies "if the firearm ... facilitated, or had the potential of facilitating, another felony offense. ..." When reviewing a sentencing enhancement under the guidelines, "we review the district court's factual findings only for clear error, and `if the issue turns primarily on the legal interpretation of the guidelines, our review is de novo.'"
The requirements of § 2K2.1(b)(6) are "satisfied if the firearm had some purpose or effect with respect to the other offense, including if the firearm was present for protection or to embolden the actor."
We find that the evidence does not prove that Harris's simultaneous possession of firearms and cocaine residue in his bedroom was anything other than coincidental. The Government's contention that Harris used the firearm to protect his cocaine is unsupported by the record. "Baggies with drug residue generally are not valuable or useful to drug users and do not need protection."
Although firearms are generally known as "tools of the trade" for drug dealers, the Government conceded that it had no evidence that Harris was a drug dealer, and Harris was found responsible only for an unmeasured quantity of cocaine residue. Moreover, Harris did not venture out in public with either the cocaine residue or the firearm; he simply possessed them in his home. Additionally, the evidence failed to prove a temporal link between the firearms and a greater amount of cocaine than just the residue. There is no evidence that Harris used or possessed a larger amount of cocaine in his home prior to the day of the search, or if he did, that the firearm was present in his home at that time.
The Government rests its argument heavily on the fact that Harris was an addict and needed to protect his drugs from others in his crime-ridden neighborhood. However, Harris was not charged with or held responsible for any drugs other than the cocaine residue found in his bedroom. The Government's argument that Harris "was possessing that gun to further his cocaine habit" is not connected to the evidence in this case. There is simply no evidence that the firearm was ever in the vicinity of an amount of cocaine worthy of protection.
Accordingly, the district court clearly erred in determining that Harris's possession of the firearm was "in connection with" his possession of cocaine. As such, we vacate Harris's sentence and remand for resentencing. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.