With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". under § 501.2(a), the district court’s refusal to apply such a reduction on an erroneous ground was harmless. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment and defendant’s sentence. 1 . Additionally, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(6) would afford a decrease in the defendant's base offense level by two increments if he were to satisfy § 5C1.2(a). 2 . To the extent that defendant’s arguments, both below and on appeal, reference the use of a firearm — rather than the possession of a firearm — , we will treat those arguments as pertaining only to possession since, under § 5C1.2(a)'s express language, a defendant need only possess — not use — a firearm in connection with the offense to be ineligible for the "safety valve” reduction. Cf. United States v. Kincaide, 145 F.3d 771, 784 (6th Cir. 1998) (<HOLDING>). 3 .The district court increased defendant’s

A: holding that mere possession of a dangerous weapon is insufficient to support a charge of robbery with a dangerous weapon
B: holding that the prerequisite of possession under ussg  2d11b1 does not require that one actually use or carry the weapon
C: holding that use of deadly weapon extends as well to any employment of a deadly weapon even its simple possession if such possession facilitates the associated felony
D: holding in part that the information did not charge actual possession where it alleged that the defendant carried displayed used threatened or attempted to use any weapon or firearm
B.