Sentencing Enhancement for Exploitation of Vulnerable Victims in Grandparent Scams under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1)

1. Introduction

The Third Circuit’s decision in United States v. Roderick Feurtado (Nos. 24-1133 & 24-1144, Apr. 14, 2025) clarifies the application of the “vulnerable victim” enhancement under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) § 3A1.1(b)(1) in the context of so-called “grandparent scams.” The appellants, Tarek Bouanane and Roderick Feurtado, participated in a multi-layered wire fraud conspiracy that targeted elderly Pittsburgh residents by impersonating their grandchildren and lawyers, then enlisting “bail bondsmen” to collect ransom-style payments. Both were convicted and received sentences above the advisory Guideline ranges, prompting them to challenge:

The two-level upward vulnerable-victim adjustment,
A downward adjustment for a minimal or minor role (Bouanane),
The zero-point offender adjustment (Bouanane), and
The substantive reasonableness of Feurtado’s 120-month sentence.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Third Circuit affirmed all sentencing rulings. Key points:

The district court correctly applied a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1) because the defendants preyed on elderly victims’ emotional and relational vulnerabilities.
Bouanane’s request for a minor/minimal-role reduction (U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2) and a zero-point offender decrease (U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1) was denied—no clear error in the district court’s fact-bound findings.
Feurtado’s upward variance to 120 months, above the 78–97 month Guideline range, was substantively reasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and within the court’s broad discretion.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

United States v. Adeolu, 836 F.3d 330 (3d Cir. 2016) – Articulates the three-prong test for “vulnerable victim”: (1) particular susceptibility, (2) defendant’s knowledge, (3) nexus to the crime’s success.
United States v. Zats, 298 F.3d 182 (3d Cir. 2002) – Clarifies that “vulnerability” may arise from age or other factors and focuses on the victim’s ability to avoid the crime.
United States v. Seligsohn, 981 F.2d 1418 (3d Cir. 1992) – Upholds vulnerable-victim enhancement when fraud exploits seniors’ emotional ties.
United States v. Astorri, 923 F.2d 1052 (3d Cir. 1991) – Confirms that exploiting intrafamily relationships justifies an enhancement.
United States v. McCall, 174 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 1998) – Emphasizes individualized inquiry into victim vulnerability.
United States v. Womack, 55 F.4th 219 (3d Cir. 2022) – Summarizes factors for minor/minimal role assessments under § 3B1.2.
United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) – Sets the standard for reviewing substantive reasonableness of a variance.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The panel’s analysis proceeded in three steps:

Vulnerable Victim Enhancement: Applying the three-prong test from Adeolu, the court found that:

The elderly victims were “particularly susceptible” due to age and the grandmother/grandfather relationship exploited by phone impersonators.
Appellants knew or should have known of the victims’ susceptibility, as the scam’s design hinged on familial trust.
The victims’ vulnerability facilitated the defendants’ crime—without the gag-order pretext and impersonation, the fraud would fail.

Role Adjustments & Zero-Point Offender: The court credited the district judge’s detailed factual findings that Bouanane understood the scheme’s scope and played a key operational role (earning a percentage of the take), which precluded any downward mitigations under U.S.S.G. §§ 3B1.2 or 4C1.1.
Substantive Reasonableness: Reviewing for abuse of discretion, the court held that an upward variance for Feurtado (quadrupling a typical wire-fraud sentence) was reasonable given:
- The organized, predatory nature of the conspiracy;
- Feurtado’s leadership role and prior history of noncriminal but manipulative schemes;
- The need for specific and general deterrence.

3.3 Impact

This decision carries three important implications:

Broad Application of Vulnerable-Victim Enhancement: Courts will be justified in imposing § 3A1.1(b)(1) whenever fraudsters exploit age-related or relational weaknesses, not merely in cases of physical or mental incapacity.
High Threshold for Role Reductions: Participants who earn a cut of proceeds and exercise any decision-making authority will struggle to qualify for minor/minimal role downward adjustments.
Deference to District Courts on Variances: Trial judges retain discretion to impose significant upward variances when § 3553(a) factors—particularly deterrence and public protection—are compelling.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Several technical terms bear clarification:

“Vulnerable Victim” (U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1): A known target whose age, infirmity, or other special susceptibility facilitates the offense. Enhanced by two levels.
“Minor” vs. “Minimal” Participant (U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2):
- Minor (–2 levels): Defendant played a limited role relative to co-conspirators.
- Minimal (–4 levels): Defendant is “plainly among the least culpable.”
“Zero-Point Offender” (U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1): First-time offenders with no criminal history points may receive a –2 adjustment unless they have a vulnerable-victim enhancement.
Appellate Review Standards:
- De Novo for legal questions (e.g., interpretation of a Guideline).
- Clear Error for factual findings (e.g., whether a victim was vulnerable).
- Abuse of Discretion for sentencing variances; reversed only if “no reasonable sentencing court” would have imposed the same sentence.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Feurtado reinforces that federal courts will not hesitate to apply sentencing enhancements when conspiracies deliberately exploit elderly or otherwise susceptible victims. It also underscores the difficulty of obtaining downward adjustments for participants who share in illicit proceeds and exercise any initiative in the wrongdoing. Finally, it affirms district courts’ broad latitude to impose upward variances under § 3553(a) when deterrence and public protection so demand. This decision will guide both trial and appellate courts in calibrating punishments for complex fraud conspiracies against society’s most vulnerable members.