Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-11133/USCOURTS-ca5-09-11133-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timmothy Allen Lakosky
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-11133

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

TIMMOTHY ALLEN LAKOSKY,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:09-CR-26-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Timmothy Allen Lakosky appeals the sentence imposed following his

conviction for possession of stolen firearms and aiding and abetting. He

contends that the district court erred in assessing a four-level enhancement that

applies when a defendant has engaged in firearm trafficking. There was

sufficient evidence to support the enhancement. We AFFIRM.

The enhancement at issue applies when “the defendant engaged in the

trafficking of firearms.” U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5). An official note to this

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 17, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 09-11133 Document: 00511206759 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/17/2010
No. 09-11133

enhancement states that it is applicable when the defendant “[k]new or had

reason to believe that such conduct would result in the . . . transfer . . . of a

firearm to an individual . . . [w]ho intended to use or dispose of the firearm

unlawfully.” Id. app. n. 13(A)(ii).

Lakosky does not dispute that he provided two firearms to his coconspirators, Jenene and Roger Conroy. He contends, though, that the evidence

did not support the finding that the Conroys intended to trade the firearms for

drugs or that Lakosky was aware of that purpose. This, however, was not his

objection in the district court. Lakosky objected to the Section 2K2.1(b)(5)

enhancement on a basis he has now abandoned. Consequently, the district court

was not given an opportunity to consider the issue and address the evidentiary

question. See United States v. Hernandez-Martinez, 485 F.3d 270, 272-73 (5th

Cir. 2007).

Our review of this newly raised objection is for plain error. United States

v. Salazar, 542 F.3d 139, 147 (5th Cir. 2008). To satisfy this standard, there

must be error, it must be plain, and it must affect the defendant’s substantial

rights. Id. Then, even if there is plain error, we will only exercise our discretion

to correct the error if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public

reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 148 (citation omitted).

In applying this enhancement, the district court adopted the findings and

analysis contained in Lakosky’s presentence report (PSR) and PSR addendum.

“[A] district court may adopt the facts contained in a PSR without further

inquiry if those facts have an adequate evidentiary basis with sufficient indicia

of reliability and the defendant does not present rebuttal evidence or otherwise

demonstrate that the information in the PSR is unreliable.” United States v.

Rodriguez, 602 F.3d 346, 363 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Cabrera,

288 F.3d 163, 173-74 (5th Cir. 2002)).

The evidentiary basis for the PSR in this case was adequate. The PSR was

based on information obtained from the Indictment, the Factual Resume,

2

 Case: 09-11133 Document: 00511206759 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/17/2010
No. 09-11133

investigative reports prepared by law enforcement, as well as personal

interviews with law enforcement agents. According to the PSR, “The defendant

provided two pistols to Jenene Findley Conroy and Roger Conroy, both of whom

were known users of methamphetamine and convicted felons, for the purpose of

them trading or exchanging the weapons for methamphetamine and marijuana.”

Lakosky’s PSR addendum did not contradict that statement. The PSR also

indicates that the Conroys, who were Lakosky’s co-conspirators, had previously

exchanged one of the stolen weapons for methamphetamine in Lakosky’s

presence.

Lakosky did not offer evidence to rebut the PSR’s finding that he gave the

firearms to the Conroys with knowledge or reason to believe that they would use

the firearms unlawfully. In the absence of such rebuttal evidence, we cannot

conclude that it was plain error for the district court to apply the Section

2K2.1(b)(5) enhancement where the PSR provided adequate basis to do so.

AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 09-11133 Document: 00511206759 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/17/2010