United States v. Challenger

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
October 22, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-50180
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHARLES ANTHONY CHALLENGER,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-02-CR-192-ALL-H
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles Anthony Challenger appeals his sentence following
his guilty-plea conviction on six counts of wire fraud. See
18 U.S.C. § 1343. Challenger argues that the district court
erred in enhancing his base offense level by two after finding
that some of his victims were “vulnerable victims” for purposes
of U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1). The Sentencing Guidelines provide
for a two-level increase in the base offense level “[i]f the
defendant knew or should have known that a victim of the offense

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-50180
-2-
was a vulnerable victim.” U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1). “We review
the district court’s interpretation of the guidelines de novo; we
review a finding of unusual vulnerability for clear error and to
determine whether the district court’s conclusion was plausible
in light of the record as a whole.” United States v. Robinson,
119 F.3d 1205, 1218 (5th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).
The district court’s determination that Challenger knew
or should have known that some of his victims were vulnerable
victims was “plausible in light of the record as a whole.” Id.
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). It was not
clear error for the district court to enhance Challenger’s
sentence under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1). See United States
v. Scurlock, 52 F.3d 531, 541-42 (5th Cir. 1995); see also United
States v. Brown, 7 F.3d 1155, 1160-61 (5th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, Challenger’s sentence is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --