United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-30100

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Brian W. Chappell, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:22-CR-37-1 

______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit 

Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Brian W. Chappell pled guilty to possession of an unregistered firearm 

in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), and possession of a firearm without a 

serial number in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(i). The firearms cited in the 

offenses of conviction were firearm silencers. Chappell was sentenced to 46 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 1, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-30100 Document: 00516952601 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2023
No. 23-30100

2

months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He now 

appeals, challenging his sentence.

The undisputed facts recounted in Chappell’s presentence report 

show that he was stopped by police while driving his tow truck. In the cab of 

the truck was a box addressed to Chappell. The contents included 168 grams 

of methamphetamine, digital scales, and plastic baggies. The silencers cited 

in the conviction offenses were found in exterior storage compartments of 

the tow truck.1

 The silencers were in, or could readily have been put in, 

operating condition, and there were other firearms in the exterior storage 

compartments with the silencers. In determining Chappell’s guidelines 

range, the probation officer applied the cross-reference under U.S.S.G. 

§ 2K2.1(c)(1)(A) to U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1, which resulted in the application of 

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, the Guideline addressing drug-trafficking offenses.

Chappell unsuccessfully objected to the application of 

Section 2K2.1(c)(1). His objection was that the adjusted offense level was 

the same whether his guidelines range was calculated under Section 2K2.1 or 

Section 2D1.1 because the probation officer had erroneously calculated his

adjusted offense level under Section 2D1.1. In his sole issue on appeal, 

Chappell contends that the district court erred in imposing the crossreference under Section 2K2.1(c)(1) because there was no connection 

between his possession of the silencers and his possession of the drugs. This 

argument is different from the one he raised in the district court, and we 

review it only for plain error. See United States v. Hill, 63 F.4th 335, 364 (5th 

Cir. 2023); United States v. Wikkerink, 841 F.3d 327, 331 (5th Cir. 2016).

_____________________

1 The record supports a finding that the exterior storage compartments were locked 

when Chappell left his home following a hurricane, but it is silent as to whether the storage 

compartments were still locked a month later when he was pulled over by police.

Case: 23-30100 Document: 00516952601 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2023
No. 23-30100

3

Firearm silencers are firearms as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(7), 18 

U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)(C), and U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1 cmt. n.1. Pursuant to the 

commentary to Section 2K2.1, subsection (c)(1) applies “if the firearm or 

ammunition facilitated, or had the potential of facilitating,” another felony 

offense. § 2K2.1 cmt. n.14(A). In cases like this one, where a drug-trafficking 

offense is involved, the cross-reference should apply if the “firearm is found 

in close proximity to drugs . . . or drug paraphernalia.” § 2K2.1 cmt. 

n.14(B)(ii). We have stated that the “in connection with” language of 

Section 2K2.1(c) requires a functional nexus. United States v. Mitchell, 166 

F.3d 748, 756 (5th Cir. 1999). The factual finding of a connection between 

the firearm and another offense is reviewed for clear error. See id. at 754 n.24.

The record does not support Chappell’s contention that the district 

court applied the cross-reference based on his possession of any firearm other 

than the two silencers that were cited in the offenses of conviction. In 

overruling Chappell’s objection to the application of the cross-reference and 

finding that the probation officer had correctly calculated Chappell’s 

guidelines sentencing range, the district court implicitly adopted the factual 

findings necessary to conclude that Section 2K2.1(c)(1)(A)’s cross-reference 

applied. See United States v. Anderson, 174 F.3d 515, 526 n.3 (5th Cir. 1999).

The district court’s determination that there was a sufficient 

connection between Chappell’s possession of the firearm silencers and the 

drug-trafficking offense to establish the necessary functional nexus “is 

plausible in light of the record read as a whole,” and is therefore not clearly 

erroneous. United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 (5th Cir. 2005); 

Mitchell, 166 F.3d at 756. Accordingly, the district court did not err, plainly 

or otherwise, in applying Section 2K2.1(c)’s cross-reference. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-30100 Document: 00516952601 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/01/2023