Opinion ID: 1266408
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Appropriateness of Special Skill Sentence Enhancement

Text: Bond's final challenge to the District Court's order concerns her two-level sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 for using a special skill to facilitate the commission of a crime. She claims that this enhancement reflects a misapplication of the sentencing guidelines and constituted clear error by the sentencing court. Bond's Br. at 40. We disagree. Section 3B1.3 of the Sentencing Guidelines provides for a two-level enhancement where the defendant ... used a special skill ... in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense. The purpose of this section is to add to the punishment of those who turn legitimate special skills to the perpetration of evil deeds. United States v. Mainard, 5 F.3d 404, 406 (9th Cir.1993); see also United States v. Young, 932 F.2d 1510, 1513 (D.C.Cir.1991). Thus, a sentencing court is required to make two findings before imposing an upward adjustment for use of a special skill: (1) the defendant possesses a special skill; and (2)... used it to significantly facilitate the commission or concealment of the offense. United States v. Batista De La Cruz, 460 F.3d 466, 468 (3d Cir.2006). The application note to § 3B1.3 defines special skill as a skill not possessed by members of the general public and usually requiring substantial education, training, or licensing. It further states that examples of individuals with special skills include pilots, lawyers, doctors, accountants, chemists, and demolition experts. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 app. n. 4. [A] § 3B1.3 sentence enhancement, however, is not limited to persons who have received substantial formal education, training from experts, or who have been licensed to perform a special skill. United States v. Urban, 140 F.3d 229, 236 (3d Cir.1998). Bond argues that, despite her advanced degree in microbiology, she does not possess a special skill because she merely was a low level technical analyst at Rohm and Haas who did not even use the two chemicals charged in the indictment. She emphasizes that 95% of the 20,000 chemicals [at Rohm and Haas] were listed on the company's computer where any employee could search the chemical by name, see where it was located, and `go and borrow it.' And she asserts that all Rohm and Haas employees receive[d] safety training and learn[ed] how to read Material Safety Data Sheets ... [,] which are published for all chemicals available in the United States. Bond's Br. at 45. These contentions fall far short of persuasive. With her degree and work experience, Bond has skills and knowledge not possessed by members of the general public and usually requiring substantial education, training, or licensing. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 app. n. 4. She is specifically trained in the development and application of biocides, which are defined as poisonous chemical substance[s] that can kill living organisms. Webster's New World Dictionary 75 (1966). She also is competent in working with chemicals and researching them according to their labeled qualities. Taken together, these attributes constitute a special skill for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. With regard to the second prong of the special skill enhancement test, use of a special skill in a manner that significantly facilitate[s] the commission or concealment of the offense is proven by a direct use of the special skill. United States v. Hickman, 991 F.2d 1110, 1113 (3d Cir.1993) (emphasis in original). The First Circuit Court, for instance, held that a repairman of bank machines directly used his special skill when he caused the machines to malfunction in order to rob them. See United States v. Aubin, 961 F.2d 980, 984 (1st Cir.1992). Even more pertinent, the Seventh Circuit Court held that a lab technician with a background in biology who ran a methamphetamine lab directly used his special skill in the commission of a crime. See United States v. Fairchild, 940 F.2d 261, 263-66 (7th Cir.1991). The Court explained that the lab technician specifically had used his knowledge of chemistry to purchase chemicals for his company, and put them together in the `right combination' ... to make methamphetamine. Id. at 266. Applying similar logic to Bond, it is apparent that she employed her special skill to select the unusually toxic chemicals she used against Haynes. In particular, her training and position allowed her to research and steal chemicals that were more toxic via topical exposure than ingestion. It also facilitated her handling and deployment of the chemicals. Additionally, it is unquestionable that Bond's special skill influenced her decision to use toxic chemicals as her weapon of revenge. Poisoning one's rivals, of course, is nothing new. But attempting to do so through the systematic application of 10-chloro-10H-phenoxarsine is not an approach typically taken by members of the general public. Rather, as the District Court concluded, it reflects the plan and actions of an individual trained in the use of biocidal chemicals. The District Court accordingly did not err in assigning Bond a two-level sentence enhancement for using a special skill in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. Bond's education and training constitute a special skill, and she directly used that skill committing her crime.