With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". firearms from the house after Wells was arrested. While the district court noted that there was some inconsistency in Elsen’s testimony, it found that her testimony clearly supported the finding that at least one additional firearm was in the house. Additionally, Wells testified that he knew there were other guns in the house when he stated Elsen could “move them guns around wherever she wanted to. She did the other ones.” He also specified to Elsen which of several firearms he wanted on November 20, 2004. With this evidence of Wells’s knowledge of and control over additional firearms in the house, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Wells had constructive possession of at least one additional firearm. See United States v. Lewis, 236 F.3d 948, 950 (8th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, we affirm

A: holding that johnson did not support the defendants collateral challenge under 28 usc  2255 to his sentence enhanced under the residual clause of the ussg
B: holding that an arithmetical error that increased a defendants base offense level pursuant to the sentencing guidelines affected his substantial rights
C: holding that there was sufficient probable cause to search a defendants residence after evidence of drug dealing was found in his car during a traffic stop that was conducted when the defendant was coming from his residence and noting that under such circumstances a practical commonsense conclusion could be made that the drugs and money had been at the defendants residence a short time before the stop
D: holding that the district court correctly increased a defendants offense level under ussg  2k21blb because the firearms found at his residence were under his control
D.