With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Id. at 1321 (“Police officers, however, testified that Travis regularly drove the Monte Carlo, that the glove compartment was easily popped open using a screwdriver they found on the floor of the passenger side of the vehicle, and that the guns were loaded with bullets that matched the two boxes of bullets found at 4016 East 55th Street [a house at which the defendant lived].”). We therefore find each of these cases distinguishable. Given the complete lack of evidence that Lucas actually or constructively possessed the firearm that was in the car’s glove compartment, we conclude that the district court’s finding to the contrary was clearly erroneous. See United States v. Gregory, Nos. 91-6400, 91-6431, 1992 WL 393144, at *12 (6th Cir. Dec.22, 1992) (unpublished table decision) (<HOLDING>). Because the government presented no evidence

A: holding that the government was required to prove that the defendant lacked a license to possess a firearm but not that the defendant possessed the firearm for any duration of time
B: holding direct testimony tying a defendant to a gun was not required when the gun was found in the defendants truck and when the defendant had both ammunition for the gun and a rack in which it could have been kept
C: holding that the enhancement applied where the defendant possessed a firearm in connection with possessing methamphetamine
D: holding that the district court eired in applying the firearm enhancement where the government presented no evidence that the defendant possessed the gun or knew that the gun was located in the bottom of his codefendants backpack
D.