Court Opinion

ID: 9411970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 18:03:55.567279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:21.829025
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10887        Document: 00516837427             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/28/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-10887
                                    Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                    ____________                                     July 28, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Artur Gilowski,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:19-CR-451-20
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Artur Gilowski timely appeals his trial conviction for conspiracy to
   commit interstate transportation of stolen property and conspiracy to
   commit mail fraud. He argues that the district court misapplied several
   Sentencing Guidelines enhancements and that some elements of the jury’s
   decision are unfounded. His conviction stems from high-level involvement

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10887        Document: 00516837427         Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/28/2023

                                     No. 22-10887

   in a crime ring which sent groups of thieves to national retailers to steal small
   electronics that a smaller number of individuals in Chicago would then resell
   on the internet.
          We conclude that the district court correctly applied the Sentencing
   Guidelines. First, Gilowski presents an argument about the amount of actual
   loss, but the amount used was presented by Gilowski, so any error is invited
   and therefore reviewed for manifest injustice. See United States v. Taylor, 973
   F.3d 414, 418 (5th Cir. 2020). Gilowski presents no binding or persuasive
   authority that there has been manifest injustice regarding the amount of
   actual loss in this case.
          Second, Gilowski offers a different interpretation of the record
   evidence around his role in the conspiracy. He objected to this enhancement,
   so we review the district court’s application of the Guidelines de novo and its
   factual findings for clear error. See United States v. Delgado–Martinez, 564
   F.3d 750, 751 (5th Cir. 2009). His argument does not demonstrate error, as
   Gilowski only offers an alternate reading of the facts.
          Third, Gilowski argues that the mass marketing enhancement
   requires direct solicitation and direct harm to consumers. He did not object
   to the application of this enhancement, so we review this argument under a
   deferential plain error standard. United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d
   751, 759–60 (5th Cir. 2008). This argument is foreclosed by our precedent.
   See United States v. Isiwele, 635 F.3d 196, 204–05 (5th Cir. 2011); United
   States v. Magnuson, 307 F.3d 333, 335 (5th Cir. 2002).
          Fourth, Gilowski argues that the enhancement in the Guidelines for
   obstruction requires an affirmative finding of perjury. He objected to this
   enhancement, so we review the legal conclusions de novo and the factual
   findings for clear error. See Delgado–Martinez, 564 F.3d at 751. The text of

                                          2
Case: 22-10887     Document: 00516837427           Page: 3   Date Filed: 07/28/2023

                                    No. 22-10887

   the Guidelines does not require a perjury finding more explicit than what the
   district court held in this case. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 & comment n.4(B).
          Finally, Gilowski argues that no reasonable jury could have found him
   guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He admits the government created an
   inference that the goods he sold were stolen, and juries may draw reasonable
   inferences from the evidence presented. See United States v. Vargas-Ocampo,
   747 F.3d 299, 301 (5th Cir. 2014). Gilowski’s other sufficiency argument is
   that his text messages used by the government should have been prohibited
   as both hearsay and co-conspirator statements. The text messages were not
   hearsay because they were not offered to prove the truth of the matter
   asserted. See United States v. Cantu, 876 F.2d 1134, 1137 (5th Cir. 1989).
   Gilowski’s argument around co-conspirator statements is not fully formed
   and cites no authority. It therefore is insufficiently briefed. See Brinkmann
   v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
          Thus, we find that a reasonable trier of fact could have found that
   Gilowski was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
          AFFIRMED.

                                         3