Defendant-Appellant Vincent Rosales appeals the sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty-plea conviction for aiding and abetting the possession of a stolen firearm. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 922®, 924(a)(2). Rosales argues that the district court erred in increasing his offense level by four levels under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) for possessing a firearm in connection with the felony offense of burglary, arguing that the stolen firearm was not used “in connection with” the burglary but, rather, was the “object” of the burglary. Rosales misses the mark. First, the guideline in question applies disjunctively to use or possession; and Rosales indisputably possessed the firearm in question during the burglary, from the time it was stolen for the remainder of the burglary. See United States v. Luna, 165 F.3d 316, 323-24 (5th Cir. 1999). Second, the district court did not clearly err in determining that Rosales possessed a firearm “in connection with” the burglary offense. See United States v. Armstead, 114 F.3d 504, 512 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Condren, 18 F.3d 1190, 1193, 1199-1200 (5th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Luna, 165 F.3d at 322-24. The sentence imposed by the district court is AFFIRMED.