Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10782/USCOURTS-ca5-15-10782-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frank Orlowski
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10782

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FRANK ORLOWSKI,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-244-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Frank Orlowski pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine with the 

intent to distribute it. The district court sentenced him to the statutory 

maximum of 20 years of imprisonment to be followed by three years of 

supervised release. Orlowski timely appealed.

In his sole issue on appeal, Orlowski challenges a two-level enhancement 

applied by the district court pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) because a 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 4, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10782 Document: 00513624115 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2016
No. 15-10782

2

firearm was possessed in connection with the offense. Orlowski contends that 

the district court erroneously applied the enhancement based on the recovery 

of a firearm from the vehicle of a customer who had just left Orlowski’s 

following a drug transaction. Orlowski asserts that this was the sole basis for 

the district court’s application of the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement, and it is thus 

the only basis he addresses.

The record reflects that the district court also found that the 

§ 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement was warranted based on reliable evidence found in 

the presentence report that Orlowski himself had possessed a firearm in 

connection with the offense. By failing to acknowledge and brief this additional 

basis for the application of the enhancement, Orlowski has waived any 

challenge to the finding that the enhancement was applicable based on 

Orlowski’s own firearm possession. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8)(A); United 

States v. Edwards, 303 F.3d 606, 647 (5th Cir. 2002). We therefore affirm the 

judgment of the district court. See United States v. Garcia-Gonzalez, 714 F.3d 

306, 314 (5th Cir. 2013) (holding that “[w]e may affirm an enhancement on any 

ground supported by the record”).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-10782 Document: 00513624115 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2016