Court Opinion

ID: 9497887
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:02:37.063282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:58:28.828246
License: Public Domain

BOGGS, Chief Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in all of the court’s opinion in this case, except for section II.B.2, reversing the district court’s vulnerable-victim enhancement. I believe that the district court committed neither legal error nor clear factual error in imposing the en*351hancement, and so I respectfully dissent in part.
Madden’s sentence was enhanced under USSG § 3Al.l(b)(l) because the district court concluded that he knew or should have known that a victim of the offense was a vulnerable victim. In this case, the relevant vulnerable victims were Eddie and Kenny Ambergee, two of the people from whom Madden bought votes. These two individuals both suffer from mental impairments. Eddie Ambergee is schizophrenic and Kenny Ambergee is manic depressive. On appeal, Madden does not challenge that these two individuals were particularly vulnerable.1 Instead, he questions whether they were victims.
The question of who can be a victim for purposes of the vulnerable-victim enhancement is a legal question that we review de novo. United States v. Zats, 298 F.3d 182, 185 (3d Cir.2002). However, as required by Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59, 121 S.Ct. 1276, 149 L.Ed.2d 197 (2001), the question of whether the vote sellers in this ease were, in fact, victims is an application of the Sentencing Guidelines' to facts, which we revievv for clear error. See United States v. Webb, 335 F.3d 534, 537 (6th Cir.2003) (“this court has' held that our standard of review of a district court’s application of provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines to the facts should be treated deferentially and should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous.”). In Buford, the Court reasoned that deference should be given to the district court’s determination of whether multiple convictions were related under USSG § 4B1.2(c) because “of the fact-bound nature of the legal decision, the comparatively greater expertise of the District Court [in making factual determinations], and the limited value of uniform court of appeals precedent.” United States v. Humphrey, 279 F.3d 372, 379 n. 4 (alteration in original) (quoting Buford, 532 U.S. at 66, 121 S.Ct. 1276). The same concerns predominate here. Whether individuals are actually harmed is a fact-intensive determination for which the district court is better-equipped. Given the unique outcomes such a fact-intensive question will generate, the need for uniform appellate treatment is diminished. Therefore, I believe this court must deferentially review the district court’s determination that Eddie and Kenny Ambergee were victims.
I begin with the purely legal question of whether people who sell their votes can be victims, and therefore vulnerable victims under § 3Al.l(b)(l), of the offense of vote buying. A vulnerable victim can be any person who is “a victim of the offense of conviction and any conduct for which the defendant is accountable under § 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct).” USSG § 3A1.1, comment, (ri.2). Therefore, a vulnerable-victim enhancement can be based on the offense of conviction or “all acts and omissions committed, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused by the defendant.” USSG § 1B1.3(a)(1); see United States v. Gawthrop, 310 F.3d 405, 408-12 (6th Cir.2002) (basing a vulnerable-victim enhancement on only defendant’s relevant conduct). There is nothing in § 3A1.1(b)(1) that limits consideration of the enhancement to the commonly identified victims of the offense. Accordingly, in Gawthrop, this court treat*352ed the grandchild of an owner of child pornography as a victim because she had been exposed to the pornographic pictures, despite the victims in child-pornography cases generally being society or the children depicted in the pornography. Id. at 410-12.
Therefore, while the federal law prohibiting vote buying may generally be aimed at protecting society at large, the possible victims from the conduct of defendants relevant to their vote' buying is not so limited. When individuals’ votes are bought, the Fifth Circuit has observed, “voters are brought to the polls who otherwise might not have voted at all.” United States v. Malmay, 671 F.2d 869, 875 (5th Cir.1982). “Aside from being ready instruments of further manipulation, their presence distorts the total, leaves to chance the federal candidates who might— or might not — receive their vote, distorts the results, and is, therefore, repugnant to the integrity of the elective1 process.” Ibid. In general, then, the prohibition on vote-buying protects the integrity of elections and, accordingly, society at large. Yet the conduct of a vote buyer can have harmful effects besides this evil, and the Sentencing Guidelines instruct us to consider all of a defendant’s relevant conduct in reviewing whether someone was a victim.
When Eddie and Kenny Ambergee sold their votes, these two men lost something of great value, the right to vote independently. Indeed, as the Supreme Court has frequently stated, “[n]o right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live.” Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17, 84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L.Ed.2d 481 (1964), quoted in Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 441, 112 S.Ct. 2059, 119 L.Ed.2d 245 (1992) and Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 199, 112 S.Ct. 1846, 119 L.Ed.2d 5 (1992). Even if these individuals may have sold their votes willingly, that fact does not foreclose the possibility of harm. This court has recognized that even seemingly willing decisions can leave individuals harmed and, thus, make them vulnerable victims. See United States v. Mautner, No. 97-3596, 1999 WL 55273, at *1, *4 (6th Cir. Jan. 13, 1999) (per curiam) (unpublished opinion) (affirming vulnerable-victim enhancement because defendant enticed individuals to take out educational loans for schooling they were ill-prepared to complete). Our sister circuits have acted similarly, construing as a victim a prostitute in prosecutions under the Mann Act, see, e.g., United States v. Evans, 285 F.3d 664, 673 (8th Cir.2002), and, in a drug distribution prosecution, a drug addict who accepted drugs, see United States v. Amedeo, 370 F.3d 1305, 1317 (11th Cir.2004). In addition, because of their impairments, Eddie and Kenny Ambergee may not have believed they were free to turn down or resist Madden’s offer. In that way, Mad-, den’s behavior in this particular case resembles voter intimidation and coercion, an obvious harm that federal law strongly and properly prohibits. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971(b), 1973i(b).
Having determined that the Sentencing Guidelines do not foreclose a vulnerable-victim enhancement in this case, I need ask only whether the district court clearly erred in determining that Eddie and Kenny Ambergee were vulnerable victims. In this case, the district court determined that the brothers were targeted because of their vulnerability. Because the discussion before the district court centered on whether Eddie and Kenny could be victims despite their roles in the offense, an argument conceded on appeal, the district court failed to explicitly state its reasons for determining the brothers were victims. However, a review of the record does not *353indicate that the district court’s conclusion was clearly erroneous. Madden not only approached Eddie, a paranoid schizophrenic, about selling his vote, but also accompanied him into the voting area and filled out his ballot. For these reasons, I would hold the district court did not err in applying the Sentencing Guidelines.

. Though Madden raises such an argument in his reply brief, any arguments presented for the first time in a reply brief áre waived before this court. United States v. Moore, 376 F.3d 570, 576 (6th Cir.2004). Even were we to review the argument, as the below discussion indicates, we would review the district court's conclusion on particular vulnerability only under the “clearly erroneous” standard. United States v. Zats, 298 F.3d 182, 185 (3d Cir.2002).