Opinion ID: 748104
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sentence Enhancement for Vulnerability of Victims

Text: 30 Grzesczuk appeals the district court's decision to adjust his offense level upward by two points because of the vulnerability of the victims. Under Sentencing Guideline § 3A1.1(b), a defendant is eligible for a two-level increase [i]f the defendant knew or should have known that a victim of the offense was unusually vulnerable due to age, ... or ... a victim was otherwise particularly susceptible to the criminal conduct[.] U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b). 31 The government argued that the victims were particularly vulnerable due to their age, and the court apparently imposed the two-level increase under 3A1.1(b) on that basis. Grzesczuk contends that such an increase was inappropriate because he did not choose the people he called, and no evidence indicated the leads he received were limited to elderly people. Grzesczuk cites comment three to Section 3A1.1(b), which states that subsection (b) does not apply in a case where the defendant sold fraudulent securities by mail to the general public and one of the victims happened to be senile. U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1, comment (n. 2). 32 The government concedes that SNN did not choose its victims exclusively due to their age. Nonetheless, the evidence admitted at trial strongly suggested that SNN and appellants victimized a disproportionate number of elderly people. The ten victims who testified at trial ranged in age from 58 to 90 years of age, with most over 70 years old. In addition, a trial exhibit showed that SNN deliberately purchased leads of individuals over the age of 60. This evidence is sufficient to show the district court did not clearly err by finding an upward adjustment was merited due to the vulnerability of the victims. 33