[977]*977OPINION OF THE COURT
AMBRO, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Orrie McNeill was convicted of two counts of heroin possession with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, and two counts of firearm possession in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924, pursuant to a jury trial in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On appeal, he argues that the District Court erred in denying (1) his motion to suppress physical evidence as the fruit of an illegal search and (2) his motion for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(c). We affirm.1
I.
In June 2004, McNeill and his girlfriend appeared in the lobby of the Swan Motel in Linden, New Jersey. McNeill’s girlfriend, Leslie Sanchez, was bleeding from the head and was hysterical. The couple asked that the motel manager call an ambulance, but requested that police not be notified. The manager called 911, and several police officers and an ambulance responded to the scene. The couple told police that Sanchez had hit her head on a piece of furniture while the couple was “fooling around” in their motel room, but police suspected much more.
While Sanchez was being treated and taken to a hospital, police attempted to question McNeill in the motel lobby. He was evasive and did not answer when asked if there were any other victims in his room. The officers asked McNeill to accompany them to the motel room so they could investigate. McNeill began walking in the direction of his motel room with the officers, but then fled down an alleyway. He was apprehended and taken to police headquarters. The officers then returned to McNeill’s room to investigate whether there was another victim. After observing blood on the door frame and carpet leading to McNeill’s room, police gained access to conduct a search. They announced their presence and then proceeded to search the motel room for victims.
What happened during the search is much contested in this appeal. Lieutenant Donald Tempalsky, one of the officers who conducted the search, testified at the suppression hearing that when the officers entered the room it was in total disarray. He testified that he observed a bag of powdery substance, Ziploc bags, and a box from a grinder, which is commonly used to dilute drugs, all in plain sight in the room. He further stated that the closet door was open a “slit” and, through the open door, officers observed a Timberland shoebox containing small cellophane bags commonly used to package heroin. McNeill, by contrast, asserts that none of these items was in plain sight.
The officers did not seize any evidence at this time, but instead secured the room and went to obtain a warrant to search both the motel room and McNeill’s automobile, which was in the motel parking lot. After obtaining a warrant, officers conducted a more thorough search of the motel room. They found over one kilogram of heroin, much of which was inside the Timberland shoebox and a black backpack, both found in the closet. Police also seized a loaded, 9mm Smith & Wesson semiautomatic handgun with a defaced serial number and ammunition. From a hidden compartment in McNeill’s Ford Taurus, officers seized $2,480 in cash, a pager, a [978]*978cell phone, McNeill’s passport, and a copy of his birth certifícate.
On the basis of what was found in the motel room and the car, McNeill was charged with one count of heroin possession with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, and one count of firearm possession in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924. Some months later, federal agents interviewed Sanchez in the course of preparing the Government’s case against McNeill. She told them that McNeill also had a hidden compartment in his father’s Ford Explorer. The agents then obtained the father’s consent to search the Explorer and found in it a compartment containing ten cellophane envelopes of heroin, a loaded .380 caliber Walther PPK semi-automatic handgun with a defaced serial number, a pager, and McNeill’s original birth certificate and Social Security card. Thereafter a superseding indictment was issued, charging McNeill with an additional count of heroin possession and firearm possession.
McNeill filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in his motel room, which the District Court denied. Its rationale was that the warrantless search was justified under the exigent-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement (namely, that the officers reasonably believed that another injured victim could have been in the motel room). McNeill then filed a motion for reconsideration. The District Court held an evidentiary hearing but again denied the motion.
McNeill was tried by a jury and convicted on all counts. After he was convicted, McNeill filed a motion for judgment of acquittal on all counts pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(c) and, in the alternative, a motion for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. The District Court denied both motions. The Court sentenced McNeill to a 481-month term of imprisonment and a five-year term of supervised release.2 He now appeals to us.
II.
A. Motion to Suppress
McNeill first argues that the District Court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence found as a result of the' initial warrantless search of his motel room. Specifically, he argues that no exigent circumstances excused the obtaining of a warrant.3 “ ‘We review the district [979]*979court’s denial of [a] motion to suppress for clear error as to the underlying facts, but exercise plenary review as to its legality in light of the court’s properly found facts.’ ” United States v. Lafferty, 503 F.3d 293, 298 (3d Cir.2007) (quoting United States v. Givan, 320 F.3d 452, 458 (3d Cir.2003)).
1. Was the Search Justified by Exigent Circumstances?
“It is a basic principle of Fourth Amendment law that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.” Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006) (internal quotations omitted). This presumption carries over to hotel rooms, as “[a] hotel room can clearly be the object of Fourth Amendment protection as much as a home or an office.” Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[977]*977OPINION OF THE COURT
AMBRO, Circuit Judge.
Appellant Orrie McNeill was convicted of two counts of heroin possession with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, and two counts of firearm possession in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924, pursuant to a jury trial in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On appeal, he argues that the District Court erred in denying (1) his motion to suppress physical evidence as the fruit of an illegal search and (2) his motion for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(c). We affirm.1
I.
In June 2004, McNeill and his girlfriend appeared in the lobby of the Swan Motel in Linden, New Jersey. McNeill’s girlfriend, Leslie Sanchez, was bleeding from the head and was hysterical. The couple asked that the motel manager call an ambulance, but requested that police not be notified. The manager called 911, and several police officers and an ambulance responded to the scene. The couple told police that Sanchez had hit her head on a piece of furniture while the couple was “fooling around” in their motel room, but police suspected much more.
While Sanchez was being treated and taken to a hospital, police attempted to question McNeill in the motel lobby. He was evasive and did not answer when asked if there were any other victims in his room. The officers asked McNeill to accompany them to the motel room so they could investigate. McNeill began walking in the direction of his motel room with the officers, but then fled down an alleyway. He was apprehended and taken to police headquarters. The officers then returned to McNeill’s room to investigate whether there was another victim. After observing blood on the door frame and carpet leading to McNeill’s room, police gained access to conduct a search. They announced their presence and then proceeded to search the motel room for victims.
What happened during the search is much contested in this appeal. Lieutenant Donald Tempalsky, one of the officers who conducted the search, testified at the suppression hearing that when the officers entered the room it was in total disarray. He testified that he observed a bag of powdery substance, Ziploc bags, and a box from a grinder, which is commonly used to dilute drugs, all in plain sight in the room. He further stated that the closet door was open a “slit” and, through the open door, officers observed a Timberland shoebox containing small cellophane bags commonly used to package heroin. McNeill, by contrast, asserts that none of these items was in plain sight.
The officers did not seize any evidence at this time, but instead secured the room and went to obtain a warrant to search both the motel room and McNeill’s automobile, which was in the motel parking lot. After obtaining a warrant, officers conducted a more thorough search of the motel room. They found over one kilogram of heroin, much of which was inside the Timberland shoebox and a black backpack, both found in the closet. Police also seized a loaded, 9mm Smith & Wesson semiautomatic handgun with a defaced serial number and ammunition. From a hidden compartment in McNeill’s Ford Taurus, officers seized $2,480 in cash, a pager, a [978]*978cell phone, McNeill’s passport, and a copy of his birth certifícate.
On the basis of what was found in the motel room and the car, McNeill was charged with one count of heroin possession with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, and one count of firearm possession in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924. Some months later, federal agents interviewed Sanchez in the course of preparing the Government’s case against McNeill. She told them that McNeill also had a hidden compartment in his father’s Ford Explorer. The agents then obtained the father’s consent to search the Explorer and found in it a compartment containing ten cellophane envelopes of heroin, a loaded .380 caliber Walther PPK semi-automatic handgun with a defaced serial number, a pager, and McNeill’s original birth certificate and Social Security card. Thereafter a superseding indictment was issued, charging McNeill with an additional count of heroin possession and firearm possession.
McNeill filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in his motel room, which the District Court denied. Its rationale was that the warrantless search was justified under the exigent-circumstances exception to the warrant requirement (namely, that the officers reasonably believed that another injured victim could have been in the motel room). McNeill then filed a motion for reconsideration. The District Court held an evidentiary hearing but again denied the motion.
McNeill was tried by a jury and convicted on all counts. After he was convicted, McNeill filed a motion for judgment of acquittal on all counts pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(c) and, in the alternative, a motion for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. The District Court denied both motions. The Court sentenced McNeill to a 481-month term of imprisonment and a five-year term of supervised release.2 He now appeals to us.
II.
A. Motion to Suppress
McNeill first argues that the District Court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence found as a result of the' initial warrantless search of his motel room. Specifically, he argues that no exigent circumstances excused the obtaining of a warrant.3 “ ‘We review the district [979]*979court’s denial of [a] motion to suppress for clear error as to the underlying facts, but exercise plenary review as to its legality in light of the court’s properly found facts.’ ” United States v. Lafferty, 503 F.3d 293, 298 (3d Cir.2007) (quoting United States v. Givan, 320 F.3d 452, 458 (3d Cir.2003)).
1. Was the Search Justified by Exigent Circumstances?
“It is a basic principle of Fourth Amendment law that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.” Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006) (internal quotations omitted). This presumption carries over to hotel rooms, as “[a] hotel room can clearly be the object of Fourth Amendment protection as much as a home or an office.” Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 301, 87 S.Ct. 408, 17 L.Ed.2d 374 (1966).
There are, however, exceptions to the warrant requirement. One exception is that the general warrant requirement will be dispensed with where “ ‘the exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Brigham City, 547 U.S. at 403, 126 S.Ct. 1943 (quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 394, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978)). We have previously held that “[ejxigent circumstances exist where ‘officers reasonably ... believe that someone is in imminent danger,’ ” Couden v. Duffy, 446 F.3d 483, 496 (3d Cir.2006) (quoting Parkhurst v. Trapp, 77 F.3d 707, 711 (3d Cir.1996) (emphasis omitted)), and the police otherwise have probable cause to search, Parkhurst, 77 F.3d at 711.
Here, the officers had ample reason to believe that a third party could be in imminent danger. When the police arrived at the motel, Sanchez was bleeding from the head and McNeill was covered in blood. McNeill was evasive when questioned about whether there was anyone else in his room, and, when escorted to his room to check for additional victims, he fled. When police reached McNeill’s motel room, they found blood in the hallway and on the door frame leading into the room. These circumstances make it objectively reasonable to believe that another victim could have been in the room. See United States v. Black, 482 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir.2007) (upholding a search on the ground that “the exigencies of domestic abuse cases present danger that, in an appropriate case, may override considerations of privacy” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
2. Was the Scope of the Search Properly Circumscribed by the Exigencies of the Situation?
That exigent circumstances justified the initial entry, however, does not end our inquiry, as an exigent-circumstances warrantless search must be “ ‘strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation.’ ” Mincey, 437 U.S. at 393, 98 S.Ct. 2408 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 26, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)). McNeill argues that the officers searched the room more closely than was necessary to search for victims, and thus exceeded the scope of the exigencies present and instead conducted a general exploratory search. We take his claim to be that, had the officers limited themselves to a quick search for victims, they would not have observed the contraband that they then used as the basis to secure a search warrant, and, accordingly, all of the evidence found in the hotel room must be suppressed as the fruit of an illegal search. The Government responds that the police officers’ search was proper in scope, and that any evidence they ini[980]*980tially saw was readily apparent to them in the course of looking for victims.
a. Understanding the Scope of Our Review
McNeill identifies several contradictions in the record in an attempt to disprove the officers’ assertions that the drugs and drug paraphernalia were readily apparent when the officers conducted the search for victims. He relies on both testimony from the evidentiary hearing and from the trial in support of his argument. At the outset, then, we must comment on what portions of the record we can properly review.
In arguing that the search was not proper in scope, McNeill references contradictions between testimony presented at the evidentiary hearing and testimony later presented at trial. However, the District Court, in reaching its decision on the pretrial motion to suppress, only had the benefit of the evidentiary hearing testimony and not the subsequent trial testimony. In this context, some Courts of Appeals have held that, when reviewing a District Court’s ruling on a pre-trial motion to suppress, an appellate court is limited to the record that was before the District Court and cannot supplement its analysis with testimony that later comes out at trial. See United States v. Hicks, 978 F.2d 722, 724 (D.C.Cir.1993) (“An appellate court should not rely on evidence first produced at trial to reverse a pre-trial denial of a suppression motion not renewed at trial.”). Thus, where testimony at trial potentially casts doubt on the veracity of earlier testimony, the proper course is for the defendant to renew his motion to suppress. See, e.g., Hicks, 978 F.2d at 724; United States v. Thomas, 875 F.2d 559, 562 n. 2 (6th Cir.1989) (“Unless the district court is given an opportunity to correct the error [upon a renewed motion to suppress], an appellate court cannot review evidence presented at trial which casts doubt upon a pretrial suppression motion.”). Were we to adopt this rationale, McNeill’s failure to renew his suppression motion before the District Court might limit the scope of our review to the testimony presented at the evidentiary hearing and not that presented at trial.
While we are mindful of how our colleagues in other circuits have resolved this question, we find it unnecessary at this time to adopt a new rule of practice that a criminal defendant must renew his suppression motion at trial or risk limiting the scope of appellate review. This is because McNeill’s claim that the pre-trial suppression ruling is undermined by potentially contradictory trial testimony fails even if we address the merits of his claim, reviewing the facts for clear error and exercising plenary review over the legality of the search. We further believe this is a prudent course of action because the parties did not have the opportunity to address this issue fully in their briefs. We thus proceed to the merits of all of McNeill’s suppression arguments.
i. Potential Discrepancies in Testimony Presented at the Evidentiary Hearing
Looking first at the record of the evidentiary hearing, McNeill argues that Lieutenant Tempalsky was not credible in his testimony about what was in plain sight in the motel room, and that Leslie Sanchez’s testimony proves this. At the evidentiary hearing, Tempalsky testified that he saw the grinder box and Ziploc bags in plain sight when he entered the room and saw the black backpack and Timberland box through the open closet. Sanchez, by contrast, testified that she had not seen any of those items when she had been in the room earlier that morning, nor could she remember whether the closet door was open. Were we to credit Sanchez’s testimony, it would tend toward the conclusion [981]*981that the officers conducted a general exploratory search rather than one circumscribed by the exigency of looking for victims.
We are not reviewing this contradictory testimony with a blank slate, however, as we have the benefit of the District Court’s ruling on this issue. The Court addressed the contradictory accounts of Tempalsky and Sanchez, “made individualized assessments of the credibility of each witness and assigned appropriate weight to the testimony based on [its] conclusions with respect to such.” Ultimately, the Court found Tempalsky to be credible and rejected the testimony of Sanchez because it did not have confidence in her veracity.
“As we have statedf,] ‘assessments of credibility by the trial court are entitled to great deference at the appellate level.’ ” United States v. Givan, 820 F.3d at 464 (quoting United States v. Brothers, 75 F.3d 845, 853 (3d Cir.1996)). Our review of the testimony from the evidentiary hearing leaves us convinced that Lieutenant Tempalskjfs testimony had at least an indicia of reliability, and thus the District Court’s determination was not clearly erroneous.4
ii. Potential Discrepancies Between Testimony at the Evidentiary Hearing and Testimony at Trial
While the District Court credited Tempalsky’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing, McNeill argues that subsequent testimony at the trial casts doubt on the Court’s credibility determination. Specifically, at the evidentiary hearing, Lieutenant Tempalsky claimed to have conducted a warrantless search lasting one to two minutes. At trial, another officer at the scene during the search, Officer Evan, testified that he was present in the room for 15 to 20 minutes. According to McNeill, Officer Evan’s testimony undermines Tempalsky’s assertion that the search was quick, which raises the suspicion that it exceeded the proper scope of the exigencies present.
We first query whether these statements, taken in context, actually demonstrate a discrepancy in the officers’ testimony. In all major respects, Officer Evan’s testimony is consistent with that of Lieutenant Tempalsky. Evan testified that he, Lieutenant Tempalsky and two other officers—Detective Fortuna and Officer Hatzelhoffer—were present for the search of McNeill’s motel room. He further testified that the officers looked around the room and did not see a victim, but did observe drug packaging in an open dresser drawer and a grinder box on the nightstand. Evan testified that Tempalsky then “decided [that the officers] would have to obtain a search warrant to go any further.” Evan continued: “[A]fter ascertaining there was nobody else there, I spoke with Lieutenant Tempalsky explaining that he can contact his narcotic boys. I was going to be doing [the] domestic end of this. I’d be leaving, going to headquarters after I go outside____Also, Officer Hatzelhoffer would remain behind to se[982]*982cure the room until we get the search warrants.” While Evan testified that he was in the room for “15 minutes, 20 minutes, if that,” he never clarified whether the actual search took that long or whether that time period also included the post-search conversations between himself and Tempalsky about who was going to take on what role in the case.
We turn to Lieutenant Tempalsky. He testified that the actual search took “[l]ess than of—less than—maybe a minute. Maybe a minute [or] two. Maybe a minute.” He then left the room with Detective Fortuna and had Officer Hatzelhoffer secure the room. Tempalsky stated that he remained “there” (presumably next to or even in the room) for “maybe a half hour” after he assigned Hatzelhoffer to secure the room. During this time, he was waiting for other officers to arrive to begin the process of applying for a search warrant.
Looking at Lieutenant Tempalsky’s testimony alongside that of Officer Evan, it seems plausible that the actual search took only one or two minutes, but that the officers spent nearly 30 minutes in the immediate aftermath determining who would secure the room, apply for the search warrant, and handle the different aspects of the case. In this context, Officer Evan’s testimony at trial concerning the time of the search is insufficient to upset the District Court’s determination that Lieutenant Tempalsky was a credible witness.
The same is true of the other potential discrepancies McNeill raises between Lieutenant Tempalsky’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing and Officer Evan’s testimony at trial. Evan testified that he, Tempalsky, Officer Hatzelhoffer, and Detective Fortuna were all present for the search, while Tempalsky could only “positively recall” that he and Fortuna were present. These statements are not directly inconsistent because Tempalsky did not state that only he and Fortuna were in the room, but merely that he knew at least He and Fortuna were there.
McNeill also highlights a potential discrepancy about who gave the officers the key to his motel room. Evan testified that the officers “located the [motel] manager” and “he gave permission to one of the maids to open the door” to McNeill’s room, while Tempalsky testified that he didn’t “have [an] independent recollection whether [the motel manager] handed [him] the key” or whether it came from .the maid. Tempalsky did testify, however, that.it was “[o]ne or the other” and that he didn’t “remember who it was.” These two accounts are also not directly contradictory, as it is consistent that the motel manager authorized a maid to open McNeill’s room and Tempalsky, having talked to both the manager and the maid about gaining entry to the room, could not remember precisely which one provided the key. Again, we fail to see clear error in the District Court’s determination that Lieutenant Tempalsky was a credible witness.
b. Reviewing the Legality of the Scope of the Search in Light of the District. Court’s Properly Found Facts’
Having concluded that the District Court’s finding that Lieutenant Tempalsky was a credible witness was not clearly erroneous, we must credit his testimony that he observed the contraband in the course of his limited search for victims. Tempalsky testified that when he entered the room to check for victims he observed a box of Ziploc bags and a small box for a grinder on the nightstand; white, powdery residue on top of the dresser; and an open dresser drawer containing more Ziploc bags and small rubber bands. He further testified that one of the sliding closet doors was “slit” open and on the floor of the [983]*983closet was a black backpack as well as an .open shoe box that appeared to contain several hundred small cellophane bags, later determined to contain drugs. After ascertaining there were no victims present, the officers left the room and obtained a search warrant on the basis of the incriminating items they observed.5
Based on Tempalsky’s account of the events, we do not believe the officers exceeded the scope of the search justified by the exigency of looking for victims. We would be faced with a very different case had' Tempalsky testified that he found the Ziploc bags or the drug residue in a closed drawer in the nightstand or between the mattresses, as those are not places where a victim could be. However, on the basis of the facts found by the District Court and its credibility determinations, we hold that the scope of the search was properly circumscribed by the exigencies of the situation—namely, looking for another victim of the assault that occurred in the motel room. Within the scope of this search, the officers then observed the drugs and evidence of drug dealing in plain sight. We discern no Fourth Amendment violation; thus, we affirm the District Court’s denial of the motion to suppress.
B. Sufficiency of the Evidence
McNeill’s second challenge on appeal is that the District Court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on both counts of possessing a handgun in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and on the count of heroin possession with intent to distribute stemming from the search of his father’s Ford Explorer. Specifically, McNeill contends that the Government failed to establish (1) that he possessed the heroin and weapon in the Ford Explorer and (2) that his possession of the weapons was in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. In reviewing the denial of a motion for a judgment of acquittal, we “must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and affirm the judgment if there is substantial evidence from which any ra= tonal trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Brown, 3 F.3d 673, 680 (3d Cir.1993) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The evidence was clearly sufficient to show that McNeill constructively possessed the firearm and the heroin found in the hidden compartment in his father’s Ford Explorer. To establish constructive possession, the Government must show that the defendant “ ‘knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion or control over a thing, either directly or through another person or persons.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Iafelice, 978 F.2d 92, 96 (3d Cir.1992)). At trial, the Government presented testimony from Sanchez that she had driven with McNeill in the Explorer and had seen him open the hidden compartment. She further testified that she had seen a handgun inside the compartment and that she knew McNeill carried a handgun. The Government also presented evidence that the handgun and heroin were found in the same compartment alongside, among other things, McNeill’s birth certificate and Social Security card. This is certainly compelling evidence that he had dominion and control over the contents of the compartment. Next, the envelopes of heroin found in the compartment were stamped with the same “Grand Slam” logo as the envelopes [984]*984found in McNeill’s motel room. Finally, in searching the motel room, the police officers found ammunition that fit the gun found in the compartment. Taking all of this into account, the evidence was more than sufficient for a jury to conclude that McNeill possessed the contraband found in the hidden compartment of his father’s vehicle.
Finally, McNeill argues that, insofar as he possessed either firearm, the evidence is insufficient to establish that he did so in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924.6 This argument also fails. In determining whether a defendant used a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, we look at the following factors:
the type of drug activity that is being conducted, accessibility of the firearm, the type of the weapon, whether the weapon is stolen, the status of the possession (legitimate or illegal), whether the gun is loaded, proximity to drugs or drug profits, and the time and circumstances under which the gun is found.
United States v. Sparrow, 371 F.3d 851, 853 (3d Cir.2004) (quoting United States v. Ceballos-Torres, 218 F.3d 409, 414-15 (5th Cir.2000)). With respect to the handgun in McNeill’s motel room, the evidence presented at trial established that the firearm was loaded, accessible, stored alongside heroin and drug packaging materials, and had a defaced serial number. As for the handgun in the Ford Explorer, the evidence at trial established that the firearm was loaded, had a defaced serial number, and was found with a pager and a substantial quantity of heroin that was stored in ten separate envelopes. These facts easily satisfy the requirements of § 924. See Sparrow, 371 F.3d at 853.
*{» ífc í|* 4* 't*
We thus affirm.