Opinion ID: 1235169
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Vulnerable Victim Enhancements

Text: Starr next argues that the district court erred in determining that E.M. was a vulnerable victim and applying a two-level enhancement for her status. The district court should apply a two-level enhancement to the defendant's offense level [i]f the defendant knew or should have known that a victim of the offense was a vulnerable victim. . . . U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1). However, the court should not apply subsection (b) if the factor that makes the person a vulnerable victim is incorporated in the offense guideline. U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1 cmt. n. 2. This enhancement was not applied with most of the victims because most of the victims' possessed only age as a vulnerable characteristic. The district court applied the vulnerable victim enhancement with respect to E.M. after the court determined that she had psychological and family problems of which Starr was or should have been aware. Starr acknowledges that E.M. had familial problems, but denies that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support that she has significant psychological problems, citing a lack of psychiatric reports. There is, however, undisputed evidence that Starr was aware of E.M.'s problem with self-mutilation, and although the parties disagree whether E.M.'s problems were significant, there was evidence in the record on which the district court could infer that Starr used this problem to gain E.M.'s confidence. Given this evidence, we conclude that the district court did not err in its application of the vulnerable victim enhancement.