Opinion ID: 39689
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Vulnerable Victims Sentencing Enhancement

Text: 19 Garza also claims that the district court's finding that the victims of her mail fraud scheme were unusually vulnerable was clearly erroneous. See United States v. Angeles-Mendoza, 407 F.3d 742, 747 (5th Cir.2005) (reviewing a finding of unusual vulnerability for clear error). The Sentencing Guidelines provide a two-level sentencing enhancement where the victims of the crime are unusually vulnerable due to age, physical or mental condition, or ... otherwise particularly susceptible to the criminal conduct. U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1, cmt. 2, n. 1. The district court explained its finding at sentencing, stating that (1) Garza specifically targeted illegal aliens; (2) her victims did not have much money, were unable to read, write or speak English well, if at all; (3) her victims lived with constant fear of deportation and permanent separation from their loved ones; and (4) this fear of deportation and inability to communicate with the authorities made the individuals particularly vulnerable to Garza's scheme. 20 Garza claims that the section 3A1.1 enhancement was improper under Angeles-Mendoza, which held that a finding of unusual vulnerability could not be based solely on the inherent vulnerabilities of smuggled aliens where the offense at issue necessarily involved smuggled aliens. 407 F.3d at 747-48. Garza's Angeles-Mendoza argument fails for two reasons. First, the finding of unusual vulnerability in the instant case was not based on the inherent vulnerabilities of undocumented aliens but rather the specific vulnerabilities of the individual victims. The district court in Angeles-Mendoza merely found that in general aliens coming from Mexico have certain vulnerabilities. Id. at 747. The court in Garza's case observed several of her victims at trial and properly relied on these specific victims' poverty, language problems, and fears of deportation. 21 Second, the defendant in Angeles-Mendoza had been convicted of conspiring to smuggle, transport, and harbor illegal aliens. Id. at 745. Accordingly, the Angeles-Mendoza Court determined that the victims' smuggled alien status was adequately taken into account by the sentence for the base-level offense. Id. at 748. By contrast, none of the offenses at issue here—mail fraud, conspiracy, and impersonating a federal employee—necessarily involve undocumented aliens. The status of Garza's victims as undocumented aliens was not taken into account by the base-level offense and consequently would not be an improper consideration under Angeles-Mendoza. See id. at 748 n. 7; see also United States v. Sierra-Velasquez, 310 F.3d 1217, 1220 (9th Cir.2002). 22 Garza also relies on United States v. Moree, 897 F.2d 1329, 1335-36 (5th Cir.1990), and United States v. Box, 50 F.3d 345, 358-59 (5th Cir.1995). She argues that these decisions hold that a section 3A1.1 enhancement is improper where the vulnerability at issue was indispensable to the defendant's crime as it was committed. She contends that her victims' vulnerability could not properly be used to enhance her sentence because their particular vulnerabilities were essential to her particular scheme. Garza misreads Moree and Box. Those cases stand for the proposition that susceptibility to the defendant's scheme alone is not enough to qualify victims as unusually vulnerable. The victims must also be vulnerable ... members of society and fall in the same category as the elderly, the young, or the sick. United States v. Gieger, 190 F.3d 661, 665 (5th Cir.1999) (citing Moree ). 23 Thus, neither the wealthy businessmen victims in Box nor the government official victim in Moree could qualify as vulnerable victims under section 3A1.1, even though they were particularly susceptible to the crimes at issue in those cases, because they did not qualify as vulnerable members of society. Because Garza's victims' poverty, language problems, and fears of deportation did make them vulnerable members of society, Moree and Box are inapposite, and the district court's finding of unusual vulnerability was not clearly erroneous. 6