United States v. James W. Mooty II , 25 F. App'x 501 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 01-2641
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                   *
    *
    v.                                 * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    James Wesley Mooty, II,                  * Western District of Arkansas.
    *
    Appellant.                  *       [UNPUBLISHED]
    ___________
    Submitted: January 4, 2002
    Filed: February 12, 2002
    ___________
    Before McMILLIAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    James Mooty pleaded guilty to three counts of mail fraud and aiding and
    abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 2; and to two counts of wire fraud and
    aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 2. The district court sentenced
    him to 20 months imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently, and
    concurrent 3-year terms of supervised release. Mr. Mooty appeals his sentence,
    challenging the district court’s application of sentencing enhancements under
    U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1) and (2).
    The Guidelines provide for a 2-level enhancement where the defendant “knew
    or should have known that a victim of the offense was a vulnerable victim.” See
    U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1). We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in
    applying this enhancement. The record before the district court at sentencing
    demonstrated that Mr. Mooty knew, or should have known, that his victims were
    particularly vulnerable because they lived out of state. See United States v. Moskal,
    
    211 F.3d 1070
    , 1073 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review). The Guidelines provide
    for an additional 2-level enhancement where “the offense involved a large number of
    vulnerable victims.” See U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(2). We believe that application of this
    enhancement, however, was unwarranted. The record supports a finding that seven
    victims were particularly vulnerable to Mr. Mooty’s fraudulent activity, and we hold
    that seven is not, as a matter of law, a “large number” within the meaning of section
    3A1.1(b)(2).
    Accordingly, we vacate Mr. Mooty’s sentence and remand to the district court
    for resentencing without the 2-level section 3A1.1(b)(2) enhancement. We deny
    Mr. Mooty’s motion to strike an addendum to the government’s brief.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-2641

Citation Numbers: 25 F. App'x 501

Filed Date: 2/12/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023