Is Orozco's sentence for possession of a dangerous weapon waived because he failed to object at sentencing?

Orozco's first three contentions are waived because he failed to object or raise them at sentencing. See United States v. Bauer, 84 F.3d 1549, 1563 (9th Cir.) (challenge to drug quantity waived where defendant did not object at sentencing), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 267 (1996), 117 S.Ct. 991, 117 S.Ct. 992, 117 S.Ct. 995 (1997).

Orozco contends that the district court erroneously applied a two-level enhancement for possession of a dangerous weapon during a drug offense, because the government failed to prove that he actively employed the gun as required by 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1). This claim lacks merit because active employment is not required in order to apply the U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement. See U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1), comment. (n.3) (1995); United States v. Watts, 117 S.Ct. 633, 637 (1997) (section 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement applies as long as government can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the weapon was present).