Opinion ID: 201561
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Vulnerable-Victim Finding

Text: 35 Under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1), the base offense level should be raised two levels if the defendant knew or should have known that a victim of the offense was a vulnerable victim. The Guidelines define a vulnerable victim as a person (A) who is a victim of the offense of conviction ...; and (B) who is unusually vulnerable due to age, physical or mental condition, or who is otherwise particularly susceptible to the criminal conduct. U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1, cmt. n. 2. We have interpreted the term `susceptible to the criminal conduct' as being `primarily concerned with the impaired capacity of the victim to detect or prevent the crime, rather than the quantity of the harm suffered by the victim.' United States v. Donnelly, 370 F.3d 87, 92 (1st Cir.2004) (quoting United States v. Fosher, 124 F.3d 52, 55-56 (1st Cir.1997)). 36 A sentencing judge must make two separate determinations before imposing a § 3A1.1(b)(1) enhancement: First, the judge must conclude that the victim of the crime was vulnerable, that is, that the victim had an `impaired capacity ... to detect or prevent the crime.' Donnelly, 370 F.3d at 92 (quoting Fosher, 124 F.3d at 55-56). Second, the judge must find that the defendant knew or should have known of the victim's unusual vulnerability. Id. We review the district court's interpretation and application of the Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Savarese, 385 F.3d 15, 18 (1st Cir.2004). 37 Bailey's argument is concerned solely with the first prong of the test — whether the victim was vulnerable. There is overwhelming evidence in the record supporting the district court's conclusion that he was. As the court explicitly found, the victim was on suicide watch, was deemed a threat to himself or others, was stripped of his clothes, was cold, and was not allowed out of his cell even to get food. In light of these findings, we are at a loss to comprehend Bailey's suggestion that the court failed to make a sufficiently particularized inquiry into the victim's situation.