Kevin Whitfield pleaded guilty to storing a stolen firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) and was sentenced to 102 months imprisonment. On appeal, Whitfield challenges the district court’s imposition of a sentencing enhancement to his base offense level, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5), based upon its finding that Whitfield used the gun in connection with two burglaries (for which he pleaded guilty in state court). We hold that the district court did not clearly err in making this factual determination; accordingly, we AFFIRM. ^[1]

I.

On October 18,1992, Whitfield burglarized an apartment in Atlanta, and stole a gun. On his way out of the apartment, Whitfield threatened the victim’s neighbor, who inadvertently confronted him, with this weapon.[*948] Shortly thereafter, Whitfield attempted to burglarize another apartment. When police officers arrived at the scene, they discovered Whitfield in a chair facing the front door of the second residence. Whitfield’s hands were hidden under a coat that was folded and lying on his lap. While one officer “covered” Whitfield, the other removed the coat from his lap and unfolded it; a semi-automatic pistol fell out. One of the officers stated, in a written report after the incident, that he believed that Whitfield had specifically positioned himself in front of the door in the hope of ambushing a police officer. Whitfield pleaded guilty to two burglary counts in state court, and was sentenced to concurrent four-year prison terms.

In federal court, the presentence investigation report (“PSI”) recommended a four-point increase in Whitfield’s base offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5), which provides for such an adjustment if, inter alia, “the defendant used or possessed any firearm ... in connection with another felony offense.” The PSI reasoned that Whitfield used the gun in connection with the state-law burglaries. Whitfield objected, contending that he was simply carrying the gun along with all the other stolen “loot,” and intended to pawn it later in the day. The district court disagreed, specifically finding that “the weapon was not being carried as part of the loot from a burglary but ha[d] been sequestered and separated from that and was being used as a weapon while committing another crime.” Accordingly, the district court imposed the sentencing adjustment.

II.

The Guidelines do not define the phrase “in connection with” in § 2K2.1(b)(5). This court has never addressed the question, and other circuits, at first glance, appear to disagree on the proper nexus between the weapon and the underlying felony. Some courts hold, by analogy to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), ^[2] that

the prosecution will have to make a greater showing than a defendant’s mere possession of a firearm to obtain a section 2K2.1(b)(5) enhancement. Instead, to the extent that the government relies upon physical possession, it must show that the firearm was possessed in a manner that permits an inference that it facilitated or potentially facilitated — i.e., had some potential emboldening role in — a defendant’s felonious conduct.

United States v. Ronton, 25 F.3d 815, 819 (9th Cir.1994). ^[3] Other courts apply a more lenient nexus by analogy to U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l), ^[4] holding that “the enhancement is required not only for use, but also simply for possession, of a firearm in connection with another felony.” United States v. Condren, 18 F.3d 1190, 1197 n. 19 (5th Cir.),[*949] cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 161, 130 L.Ed.2d 99 (1994) (emphasis in original). ^[5]

It is questionable whether these theoretically distinct standards in fact differ in practice. ^[6] This case, however, does not require us to choose between the two competing interpretations of § 2K2.1(b)(5), because the enhancement was proper under either legal standard. See McCabe v. Sharrett, 12 F.3d 1558, 1569 (11th Cir.1994) (unnecessary to choose test for evaluating freedom of association claim where result would be the same under both standards). ^[7] Whatever the applicable legal benchmark, the district court’s factual determination that the weapon was used or possessed “in connection with” the burglaries was not clearly erroneous. ^[8] Whitfield’s use of the gun to threaten a bystander between the burglaries, his concealment of the gun in his coat at the time of the arrest, and the officer’s averment that Whitfield had apparently positioned himself to fire the weapon at persons coming through the front entrance of the apartment, all plainly evidence both possession of the gun in connection with the burglaries and facilitation of the burglaries by use of the gun. Compare Guerrero, 5 F.3d at 873 (defendant possessed firearms “in connection with” a burglary for purposes of similar U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4(b)(3)(A) “armed career criminal” enhancement even where they were not used to commit the burglary, but were instead its fruits; “[p]os-session of firearms obviously increases the danger of violence whether or not such weapons are actually used. If armed burglars encounter the occupants of a home or law enforcement officials, it makes little difference how the burglars obtained their firearms.”) (emphasis in original). Accordingly, the district court did not err in increasing Whitfield’s offense level under § 2K2.1(b)(5).

AFFIRMED.