Opinion ID: 4527853
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The scheme preyed on vulnerable older victims

Text: The District Court properly enhanced Rehfuss’s Guidelines range because his scheme targeted older, low-income victims and intimidated them into undergoing genetic tests. The Guidelines authorize a two-level enhancement “[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). Age counts as a vulnerability. Id. cmt. n.2(B). This enhancement applies when the Government shows that at least one victim was vulnerable, that the defendant knew or should 4 have known of that vulnerability, and that vulnerability had some link to the crime’s success. Adeolu, 836 F.3d at 333. Rehfuss concedes that the seniors who he tested count as victims, even though only Medicare suffered financial harm. Appellant’s Br. 6 n.2; see United States v. Zats, 298 F.3d 182, 186–87 (3d Cir. 2002). Rather, Rehfuss argues that the District Court made no “individualized determination” that any victim was particularly vulnerable. Appellant’s Br. 10. He objects that the court improperly “relied on an inaccurate ‘generalization’ that elderly people sometimes” are less alert. Appellant’s Br. 11. That objection is hardly fatal. The District Court did generalize that Rehfuss’s elderly victims were susceptible to fraud. But such generalizations, while disfavored, are not forbidden. Adeolu, 836 F.3d at 332 n.3; see United States v. Sims, 329 F.3d 937, 944 (7th Cir. 2003) (holding that elderly victims are especially vulnerable to crimes involving their finances). District courts can paint with a broad brush when appropriate. The District Court was right to do so here for four reasons. First, Rehfuss preyed on more than a thousand seniors, and only one had to be vulnerable for the enhancement to apply. Second, he admitted to targeting Medicare participants living in low-income housing, exactly the kind of victim primed to accept free medical tests. Third, he bypassed the victims’ personal doctors, who might have questioned or objected to his tactics. Finally, his presentation worked by scaring seniors into undergoing his test and sharing their personal medical information for fear of lethal conditions associated with aging. 5 In short, he preyed on vulnerabilities linked to his victims’ age, health, and income. That “made it easier to [perpetrate] the fraud.” United States v. Hawes, 523 F.3d 245, 255 (3d Cir. 2008). So the District Court’s generalization was not error, let alone clear error.