Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-05020/USCOURTS-ca10-91-05020-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul Richard Jastrzembski
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

F 1 Li:; Ji r,~ United Stat~s Co!1111-?~ ppe::. " 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tc!l.th (,r.!UI ' 

TENTH CIRCUIT FEB 1 ~ 1992 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

PAUL RICHARD JASTRZEMBSKI, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

ROBii'!lT L. HOECKEE 

Cle!'l: 

No. 91-5020 

(D.C. No. 90-CR-74-C) 

( N. D . Okla. ) 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellant Paul Jastrzembski appeals the sentence imposed by 

the district court. On appeal, Jastrzembski asserts that the 

district court erred in enhancing his sentence pursuant to 

Sentencing Guidelines§ 2D1.l(b)(l) . We exercise jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. 

At the sentencing stage, we will not overturn the district 

court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-5020 Document: 010110222545 Date Filed: 02/12/1992 Page: 1 
United States~ Harris, 903 F.2d 770, 778 (10th Cir. 1990). 

Jastrzembski contends that there was not sufficient evidence to 

enhance his sentence under Sentencing Guidelines§ 2Dl.l(b)(l). 

Section 2Dl.l(b)(l) provides that "[i]f a dangerous weapon 

(including a firearm) was possessed, increase by 2 levels." Note 

3 in the commentary to§ 2Dl.l states that "[t]he adjustment 

should be applied if the weapon was present, unless it is clearly 

improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense." 

After reviewing the record, we cannot find that it was 

clearly improbable that the weapon was connected with the offense. 

During a presentence investigation interview, the defendant 

admitted that he knew that firearms were kept at the premises and 

that several of the defendants carried these firearms. A coconspirator, Russ Burnett, stated that he had observed the 

defendant target practicing at the laboratory site on several 

occasions. In addition, another co-defendant, Michael McNeil, 

stated that it was common to see Jastrzembski carrying a pistol 

and that he was present when Jastrzembski was target practicing at 

the laboratory site. From this, and additional evidence, we agree 

with the district court's enhancement of the defendant's sentence 

under§ 2Dl.l(b)(l). 

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-5020 Document: 010110222545 Date Filed: 02/12/1992 Page: 2