Opinion ID: 691979
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: adjustment for vulnerable victims

Text: 77 The district court found that the individuals arrested at the roadside park were vulnerable victims pursuant to Sec. 3A1.1 and added two offense levels. 20 Section 3A1.1 provides that [i]f the defendant knew or should have known that a victim of the offense was unusually vulnerable due to age, physical or mental condition, or that a victim was otherwise particularly susceptible to the criminal conduct, increase by 2 levels. The commentary states that the adjustment is applicable when the defendant selects an unusually vulnerable victim for his criminal activity. Section 3A.1, comment. (n. 1). It also provides scenarios demonstrating whether the adjustment should be applied. For instance, it would apply if a defendant marketed a bogus cure for cancer in a fraud case or if a defendant selected a handicapped victim to rob. Id. It would not apply, however, to a bank teller solely because of the teller's position in the bank. Id. 78 The finding of 'vulnerability is a complex fact dependent upon a number of characteristics which a trial court could not possibly articulate completely,' and is certainly 'not reducible to a calculation of the victim's age or to a diagnosis of the victim's disease.'  Brown, 7 F.3d at 1160 (quoting United States v. Mejia-Orosco, 868 F.2d 807, 809 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 924, 109 S.Ct. 3257, 106 L.Ed.2d 602 (1989)). Accordingly, we give the finding of vulnerability due deference. Brown, 7 F.3d at 1160. 79 The government claims that the roadside park arrestees were all white-collar professionals who were not local residents, and that fighting a stigmatizing morals charge in a county away from home would have caused them emotional and financial problems. Therefore, the government argues that the victims were vulnerable in that they were not likely to complain because of their professions and positions in their communities, and because it would have been a credibility contest between the victims and a Wise County deputy. Box disputes the government's characterization of these facts, claiming that the roadside park arrestees were not the type of vulnerable victims contemplated by Sec. 3A1.1. 80 In United States v. Moree, 897 F.2d 1329 (5th Cir.1990), the defendant's offense arose from his offer to fix the trial of an indicted public official, and the district court applied the vulnerable victim adjustment. There, the victim's particular susceptibility to the crime was his prior indictment. Id. at 1336. We concluded that although that such vulnerability made the crime possible, it did not make the victim an unusually vulnerable victim. Id. We explained that neither a businessman nor a bank should be considered unusually vulnerable to armed robbery merely because the bank robber knows they have cash on hand or may have some breach in their security system. Id. 81 Similarly, in the case at bar, if the victims had unsullied reputations and significant financial resources, those alleged vulnerabilities simply made the extortion possible. We find that the victims were not particularly susceptible within the meaning of Sec. 3A1.1, and thus, the district court erred in applying this enhancement. Cf. Brown, 7 F.3d at 1160-61 (defendant targeted lonely, elderly widows in money order scam and court properly applied Sec. 3A1.1 adjustment); United States v. Rocha, 916 F.2d 219, 244-45 (5th Cir.1990) (vulnerable victim in that kidnap victim was under 18 years old and still terrified at trial), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 934, 111 S.Ct. 2057, 114 L.Ed.2d 462 (1991); United States v. Bachynsky, 949 F.2d 722 (5th Cir.1991) (adjustment applied in fraud case when patients of defendant physician were given false information regarding their medical status), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 150, 121 L.Ed.2d 101 (1992).