Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Page: 1 of 5
Case: 15-12794
Page: 2 of 5
argues that the district court clearly erred by applying a two-level vulnerable
victim sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3A1.1(b)(1). After careful
review, we affirm.
We review de novo the district courts application of the sentencing
guidelines but must give due deference to the district courts factual findings.
United States v. Kapordelis, 569 F.3d 1291, 131516 (11th Cir. 2009). However,
objections to sentencing calculations raised for the first time on appeal are
reviewed for plain error. United States v. Moran, 778 F.3d 942, 977 (11th Cir.
2015). Plain error requires that the defendant establish three factors: (1) error, (2)
that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights. United States v. Hesser, 800
F.3d 1310, 1324 (11th Cir. 2015). If these conditions are satisfied, we may, in our
discretion, recognize a forfeited error where the error seriously affects the
fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. (quotation and
brackets omitted).
reasonable probability that he would have received a shorter sentence but for the
error. United States v. Jones, 743 F.3d 826, 830 (11th Cir. 2014).
The vulnerable victim enhancement applies a two-level increase [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). A vulnerable victim is a person
(A) who is a victim of the offense of conviction and any conduct for which the
2
Case: 15-12794
Page: 3 of 5
Case: 15-12794
Page: 4 of 5
returns. Moreover, Walbey targeted inmates with longer prison sentences whom
he perceived as less likely to file tax returns, thereby reducing the odds he would
be caught. And in some cases, Walbey used the same inmates name multiple
times to file a fraudulent tax return. In fraud cases the repeated targeting of a
victim . . . constitutes evidence that the defendant knew the victim was particularly
vulnerable to the fraud scheme. United States v. Day, 405 F.3d 1293, 1296 (11th
Cir. 2005).
Case: 15-12794
Page: 5 of 5
To the extent Walbey asks this Court to reconsider the holdings in United States v. Bazile, 590
F. Appx 870 (11th Cir. 2014), a party abandons a claim that is not adequately addressed in its
brief. United States v. King, 751 F.3d 1268, 1277 (11th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 389
(2014). Terse statements or argument in passing are insufficient to save an issue from
abandonment. Id. Because Walbey mentioned Bazile without discussion or support from
authority, Walbey has abandoned this argument.
5