Opinion ID: 786759
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Passing on

Text: 39 The Wrights do not challenge the court's finding that the fact that the victims were passed on to co-defendant Keffler rendered them vulnerable. Rather, they claim the court erred as a matter of law by impermissibly double-counting their parental status. See U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(2). 40 While the passing on factor is related to parental control, taking it into account here was not error because it was possible for the Wrights to have received the parental adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(2) without having passed their son on to others for more abuse. See United States v. Reese, 2 F.3d 870, 895 (9th Cir.1993) (defining impermissible double-counting as occurring when one part of the Guidelines is applied to increase a defendant's punishment on account of a kind of harm that has already been fully accounted for by the application of another part of the Guidelines). Therefore, use of this factor in the vulnerable victim assessment captures `the full extent of the wrongfulness of [defendants'] conduct' in this case. Archdale, 229 F.3d at 869 (quoting Reese, 2 F.3d at 895).