Opinion ID: 677126
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Special Skills

Text: 46 Harper also contends that an increase in her sentence for using special skills was not warranted. We agree. 47 Section 3B1.3 allows a two-level increase [i]f the defendant ... used a special skill, in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense. The government contends that the knowledge Harper gained as an employee of both Bank of America and Pedcom (an ATM service company) qualifies as a special skill under the Guideline. Specifically, the government points to Harper's knowledge of ATM service procedures, her knowledge of how ATM technicians enter ATM rooms and open ATM vaults, her knowledge of how to disarm ATM alarm systems, and her knowledge of when ATM vaults are likely to contain large amounts of cash. This knowledge, however, is not sufficient to sustain an adjustment for the use of special skills. 48 Application note 2 to the Guideline explains that: 49 Special skill refers to a skill not possessed by members of the general public and usually requiring substantial education, training or licensing. Examples would include pilots, lawyers, doctors, accountants, chemists, and demolition experts. 50 What Harper learned during her employment with the Bank of America and Pedcom cannot be reasonably equated with the skills developed and possessed by pilots, lawyers, doctors, accountants, chemists and demolition experts. The application note stresses that special skills usually require substantial education, training or licensing. If Harper's knowledge, gained from her former employment, were sufficient to sustain the adjustment for special skills, then almost any insider who uses her special knowledge of her own institution and its procedures to commit a crime would be eligible for the enhancement. The application note clearly indicates that the Sentencing Commission did not intend that result. 51 We have held that a defendant's preexisting education and skill in printing was insufficient to justify imposition of the special skills adjustment for the crime of photographing federal reserve notes. United States v. Green, 962 F.2d 938, 944-45 (9th Cir.1992). We noted in Green that [c]ourts have generally rejected application of the guideline merely because the offense was difficult to commit or required a special skill to complete. Id. at 944. In Green, we also cited approvingly to United States v. Young, 932 F.2d 1510 (D.C.Cir.1991), in which the District of Columbia Circuit rejected an argument that all people who manufacture PCP are subject to the special skill adjustment simply because most people in the general public do not possess the skill to manufacture PCP. The Young court stated: 52 [T]he syllogism ... cannot easily be confined to the manufacture of PCP. Employing the same logic, the government could also argue that a Sec. 3B1.3 enhancement is due whenever an offense involves some skill that the general public does not possess: counterfeiting U.S. Currency or manufacturing a bomb are two likely examples. In essence, the government is contending that if the offense is a difficult one to commit, the mere ability to commit it evidences a special skill sufficient to justify an enhancement under Sec. 3B1.3. 53 Young, 932 F.2d at 1512-13. That court also noted that [n]othing in the commentary suggests that Sec. 3B1.3 applies to a criminal who, like appellant, bones up on the tricks of his trade and becomes adept at committing a crime that the general public does not know how to commit. Id. at 1514. We agree. 54 In light of Green and Young, we conclude that Harper's knowledge of ATM service procedures does not constitute a special skill for the purposes of U.S.S.G. Sec. 3B1.3. 8