Background
Tanner Stinson pleaded guilty to traveling in interstate commerce with intent to engage in a sexual act with a minor in violation of Section eighteen of the United States Code, Section two thousand four hundred twenty-three, subsection B. He challenged his one hundred thirty-five-month sentence, arguing the district court erred by applying a two-level vulnerable-victim enhancement under Guideline Section three A one point one, subsection B one, and by using conditional sentencing language in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure thirty-two, subsection I three, subsection B one.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the vulnerable-victim enhancement de novo for interpretation and for clear error regarding the application of unusual vulnerability. The record showed the victim had a fifth-percentile score in adaptive behavior, indicating a diminished ability to thwart or resist the crime. The court found Stinson should have known of the victim’s susceptibility given his in-person meetings and months of online communication. Regarding the Rule thirty-two challenge, the court noted the issue was not preserved in district court, requiring a plain error review. Stinson failed to show clear or obvious error or cite precedent supporting his claim that conditional language violated the rule.
What it means going forward
This decision reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s deference to district court findings on victim vulnerability when supported by psychological assessments and confirms that challenges to sentencing language must be preserved to avoid plain error review.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download