Pursuant to a plea agreement, Randall Todd Seals pled guilty to both counts of an indictment — Count One, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C); Count Two, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) — and the district court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of 78 months. He now appeals his sentences, contending that, in fixing the Guidelines sentence range for the Count Two offense under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1, the district court erred in enhancing the base offense level of 20 by 4 levels pursuant the U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6) 1 since he “possessed [the] knowledge, intent, or reason to believe that it would be used or possessed in connection with another felony offense,” i.e., the Count One offense. 2 The court invoked the enhancement because, as the presentence report stated and the court found, “the cocaine [involved in the Count One offense] and firearm were found in close proximity to each other, both located in safes adjacent to one another and stored underneath the defendant’s bed.”

Seals argues that the district court erred in making the enhancement because, according to him, the firearm was not close enough in terms of effort and time to be *858 considered immediately accessible for the purposes of drug trafficking. He also argues that the Government failed to introduce any evidence showing his ability to gain immediate access to both safes. We are not persuaded.

The precise question for us is whether the evidence before the district court was sufficient to enable the court to find that Seals possessed the firearm with “knowledge, intent, or reason to believe that it would be used or possessed” in connection with his commission of the Count One offense — the possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. The evidence showed that the gun was contained in a safe approximately one foot away from the safe containing the cocaine and that Seals had access to both safes during the search of his home. Drawing on this evidence, the court found as fact that Seals had immediate access to the weapon and how he might be able to use the gun during the drug deal he anticipated making. 3

AFFIRMED.