With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and managed the other members of the conspiracy following her husband’s arrest. Guerra has not established that the district court clearly erred in imposing the three-level enhancement under § 3Bl.l(b). See id. She also argues that the district court erred when it applied the two-level weapons enhancement pursuant to § 2D1.1(b)(l). A district court’s determination that the § 2Dl.l(b)(l) weapons enhancement applies is also a factual finding reviewed for clear error. United States v. Zapata-Lara, 615 F.3d 388, 390 (5th Cir.2010). To support the enhancement, the Government must demonstrate a “temporal and spatial relationship [between] the weapon, the drug trafficking activity, and the defendant.” Id.; see also United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 766 (5th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). If the Government satisfies its burden, “the

A: holding intent may be inferred from large amount of marijuana
B: holding that a large amount of drugs increases the likelihood of weapons
C: holding in a ease of a reverse sting operation the use of a large amount of drugs did not amount to sentencing factor manipulation
D: holding firearms large sums of cash  and uncharged quantities of illegal drugs are admissible to show a defendant is involved in the distribution of illegal drugs
B.