Opinion ID: 763281
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Victim Vulnerability

Text: 23 Brawner's final challenge is to the district court's decision to apply the vulnerable-victim enhancement to his sentence. We review a district court's findings regarding the vulnerability of a victim for clear error. See United States v. Smith, 39 F.3d 119, 122 (6th Cir.1994). A district court's factual findings for sentencing purposes need only be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. 24 Brawner contends that the sentencing court clearly erred by imposing a two-level increase pursuant to section 3A1.1(b) of the sentencing guidelines. Section 3A1.1(b) provides: If the defendant knew or should have known that a victim of the offense was unusually vulnerable due to age, ... or that a victim was otherwise particularly susceptible to the criminal conduct, increase by 2 levels. U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b) (Nov.1995). This court has previously conditioned the imposition of this enhancement on the requirement that a defendant actually have targeted a victim because of his or her vulnerability. See Smith, 39 F.3d at 122-24. The Smith court, noting a split in the circuits, reached this conclusion based in great part upon the guidelines commentary that stated: This adjustment applies to offenses where an unusually vulnerable victim is made a target of criminal activity by the defendant. § 3A1.1, comment. (n.1) (Nov.1994). 25 Brawner also relies upon the made a target language in claiming he did not target his victims as vulnerable. However, Amendment 521, effective November 1, 1995, changed the application notes to section 3A1.1 to clarify the operation of section 3A1.1, specifically whether the victim must have been targeted by the defendant. See U.S.S.G.App. C, amend. 521, at 428-30 (Nov.1995). Amendment 521, inter alia, deleted the made a target sentence and replaced it with: Subsection (b) applies to offenses involving an unusually vulnerable victim in which the defendant knows or should have known of the victim's unusual vulnerability. U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1, comment. (n.2) (Nov.1995). In amending the commentary, the Sentencing Commission acknowledged the Smith court's observation that there had been some inconsistency in the application of section 3A1.1 regarding whether the adjustment required proof that the defendant had targeted the victim on account of the victim's vulnerability. U.S.S.G.App. C, amend. 521, at 430 (Nov.1995). The Commission stated that the amendment's purpose was to clarify the application of section 3A1.1 as to that issue, i.e., that there is no requirement that a victim have been made a target because of his or her vulnerability. Id.; see United States v. Burgos, 137 F.3d 841, 843-44 (5th Cir.1998), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 119 S.Ct. 833, 142 L.Ed.2d 690, 1999 WL 8652 (1999); United States v. Cain, 134 F.3d 1345, 1351 (8th Cir.1998). This conclusion is buttressed by the unqualified mandate that [i]f the fraud exploited vulnerable victims, an enhancement will apply. U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1, comment. (n.12) (Nov.1995). Because the district court sentenced Brawner in accordance with the 1995 United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual, Amendment 521 controls this issue. Thus, Brawner's argument that he was not shown to have targeted his victims as being unusually vulnerable, is without merit. 26 Brawner also argues that his customers were not vulnerable victims at all. We disagree. It is clear that Brawner's organizations targeted vulnerable people. First of all, the leads were people identified as willing to send in money in the hope of winning a valuable prize. These people were predisposed to the very scam Brawner was running; indeed, that is why he bought the leads lists. This susceptibility is clearly covered in the guideline language, referring to a victim ... otherwise particularly susceptible to the criminal conduct. § 3A1.1(b). The vulnerability of these people is also evident from the reloading process. Through the reloading process, those known to have already succumbed to the one-in-five scheme were contacted again and again, thereby further honing the original list. Moreover, the list contained the ages of the respondents, thereby enabling Brawner to exploit older people, who, according to the expert testimony of Roberts, are more susceptible to these scams. The susceptibility of the victims here was a known quantity from the start, only to be refined into a verified sucker's list through the reloading process. Ample evidence supports the conclusion that Brawner's victims were targeted because they were vulnerable.