Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): adjustment for abuse of position of trust or use of special skill, it is not primarily concerned with the defendant’s selection of victims who will suffer greatly from the crime. The vulnerable victim enhancement provides as follows: If the defendant knew or should have known that a victim of the offense was unusually vulnerable due to age, physical or mental condition, or that a victim was otherwise particularly susceptible to the criminal conduct, increase by 2 levels. U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1 (1992). The courts appear to have interpreted “susceptible to the criminal conduct” as emphasizing that a particular victim was less likely to thwart the crime, rather than more likely to suffer harm if the crime is successful. See, e.g., United States v. Hershkowitz, 968 F.2d 1603, 1506 (2d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Caterino, 967 F.2d 681, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that evidence that the defendant had stalked threatened and assaulted the victim his exgirlfriend was evidence as to the nature of the defendants relationship with the victim and that it was relevant to establish motive (B) holding that prisoner who was surrounded by prison officers and then assaulted by one officer was vulnerable victim because he was not in a position to resist (C) holding vulnerable victim factor sufficiently supported by evidence that victim was 82 and physically unable to resist attackers (D) holding a single vulnerable victim is sufficient to support application of the vulnerable victim enhancement (E) holding bank customers affected by embezzlement could be victims for purposes of vulnerable victim enhancement
Output (English): holding that evidence that the defendant had stalked threatened and assaulted the victim his exgirlfriend was evidence as to the nature of the defendants relationship with the victim and that it was relevant to establish motive