TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. James W. Mooty II

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James Wesley MOOTY, II, Appellant

United States v. Mooty, II, 25 F. App'x 501 (8th Cir. 2002)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
February 12, 2002
Docket
No. 01-2641
Judges
McMillian, Arnold, Bye
Citations
25 F. App'x 501
Status
Unpublished

Opinion — Per Curiam

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. § 3Al.l(b)(l) 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. § 3Al.l(b)(l). 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. § 3Al.l(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 3Al.l(b)(2).

Accordingly, we vacate Mr. Mooty’s sentence and remand to the district court for resentencing without the 2-level section 3Al.l(b)(2) enhancement. We deny Mr. Mooty’s motion to strike an addendum to the government’s brief.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

2021: 120212026peak 2021 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Katie Boll3 F.4th 1099 (8th Cir. 2021)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Katie Boll3 F.4th 1099 (8th Cir. 2021)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Moskal, 211 F.3d 1070 (8th Cir. 2000) 11

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list