Case ID: f-appx_473/html/0625-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Orrin Eugene HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-30235.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2012.
    
    Filed May 21, 2012.
    Jessica Anne Betley, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, Michael T. Wolfe, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Helena, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Evangelo Arvanetes, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Orrin Eugene Hernandez appeals from the 37-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for assault resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 113(a)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Hernandez contends that the district court erred in imposing a two-level vulnerable victim enhancement. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b); United, States v. Rising Sun, 522 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2008) (imposition of vulnerable victim enhancement is reviewed for abuse of discretion); United States v. Weischedel, 201 F.3d 1250, 1254-55 (9th Cir.2000) (to determine vulnerability, the court examines “personal traits of the victims and the specific circumstances in which the victims found themselves when the crimes were committed, and ask[s] whether there were any characteristics or circumstances that made the victims particularly susceptible to the crime”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.