WPC' Ū.jy_T1@"gby5mur mJp5yv.v9}@QA; O.I/)?tz]*6Ԙ}*oߚM'u~|0VA$ `/ wFݹ9}syo 내I"EА$.k@]z j\LO# S(&@cX]"}Z8V]Zj|SC5 +{09Dnq@p&ꮔ?nu>;a**:WIu>2HOO'5O34䯞 XJw<2 2|4Ҏv4j%t:ޭt!V\G YP>T~5N    ` Focusingonthelanguageofsection3A1.1andthe : sectionscommentary,atwoprongtestmustbesatisfiedbeforethe  enhancementisimposed:First,thesentencingcourtmustfindthat B thevictimofthecrimewasvulnerable,thatis,thatthevictim > hadan impairedcapacity...todetectorpreventthecrime.  Id.at5556(quotingGill,99F.3dat486);andsecond,the F ! sentencingcourtmustfindthatthedefendantkneworshouldhave !B# knownofthevictimsunusualvulnerability. #%    ` Onappeal,Donnellychallengesthedistrictcourts J% ' applicationofthevulnerablevictimenhancementonseveral &F") grounds:(1)L.G.wasnotavulnerablevictimwithinthemeaningof (#+ section3A1.1becausehewasnotparticularlysusceptibletothe N*%- assault;(2)therecorddoesnotsupportafinding,eitherdirectly +J'/ orbyinference,thatDonnellykneworshouldhaveknownthatL.G.  wasparticularlysusceptible;and(3)thereisnonexusbetween \ L.G.svulnerabilityandtheassault. X    ` WebeginbydisposingofDonnellysthirdassignmentof   error:thatthedistrictcourterredinapplyingsection3A1.1 `  becauseitdidnotfindanexusbetweenL.G.svulnerabilityand  \  Donnellyscrime.Donnellyurgesustoadopttheanalysisset   forthinUnitedStatesv.Monostra,125F.3d183(3dCir.1997),a d  ThirdCircuitcasewhichthecourtremandedtothedistrictcourt `  forfurtherconsiderationofwhethertherewasanexusbetweenthe   victimsvulnerabilityandthecrimessuccess. h    ` Thenexusrequirementisbasedonthegenerallimitation d thatasentencingcourtbaseitsfindingofunusualvulnerability  onindividualizedfindingsofparticularsusceptibility,rather l thanonthevictimsmembershipinalargeclass.SeeUnited h Statesv.Lee,973F.2d832,834(10thCir.1992)( Thelanguageof  theguidelinerequiresthatavictimbeunusuallyvulnerable.. p  .andthecasesaccordinglyrequirethatthesentencingcourtmake (!x" particularizedfindingsofvulnerability.Specifically,there "$$ shouldbeanexusbetweenthevictimsvulnerabilityandthe $& crimesultimatesuccess.(emphasisinoriginal)). Wehave ,&|!( discouragedsentencingcourtsfrommakinganunusuallyvulnerable '(#* victimfindingbasedsolelyonthevictimsmembershipina )$, particularclass,buthaverecognizedthat insomecases 0+&. inferencestobedrawnregardingparticularclasscharacteristics  maybesostrongthattherecanbelittledoubtaboutunusual \ vulnerabilityofclassmemberswithinthemeaningofsection X 3A1.1.Fosher,124F.3dat56#X  X X X I# X  X XX (quotingGill,99F.3dat487).   Sincethe nexustestisalreadyapartofouranalysisof `  whetherthevictimisa vulnerablevictimundersection3A1.1,we  \  findthatitwouldbesuperfluoustoincorporateathird,   independent nexusprongintoourdiscussionoftheapplicability d  ofthevulnerablevictimenhancement.Wethereforefocusonthe `  twoprongformulation:(1)thatthevictimwasunusually   vulnerable,and(2)thatthedefendantkneworshouldhaveknownof h thevictimsunusualvulnerability. d   A.UnusualVulnerability  Zb   ` Donnellychallengesthedistrictcourtsapplicationof l section3A1.1,arguingthatL.G.isnota vulnerablevictim. h FirstDonnellyassertsthatthedistrictcourterredinapplying  section3A1.1becausethefactsbeforethedistrictcourtdidnot p  supportanindividualizedfindingofvulnerability.+ #  5      ׀Wedisagree. !l" Therecordbelowamplysupportsthedistrictcourtsdetermination  thatL.G.wasunusuallyvulnerabletotheassault,thatis,thathe \ hadan impairedcapacity...todetectorpreventthecrime. X Fosher,124F.3dat5556(quotingGill,99F.3dat486).      ` L.G.wasreprimandedbyBensonforbreakingjailrules, l  exchangedwordswithanotherofficerovertheincident,andasa  h  result,wassentbacktohislockedcellinthemedicalunit.Back   inhiscell,L.G.foundhimselfexhibitingsymptomsofaTourettes p  relatedoutburst.Tolessentheeffectsofhisoutburst,L.G. l  engagedinphysicalactivitywhichinducedBenson,andlater  Donnelly,toapproachL.G.scell.Itwastheexchangebetween t BensonandL.G.,whichresultedfromL.G.sTourettesoutburst,  p whichledtotheassault.Thus,itisreasonabletoconclude,as  didthedistrictcourt,thatL.G.sconditionmadehimparticularly x susceptibletotheattack. $t    ` Furthermore,thesefactsillustratetheindividual   characteristicspossessedbyL.G.whichdistinguishhimfromthe |  otherdetainees:adetaineewhodoesnotsufferfromTourettes (!x" Syndromecanmakeaconsciousdecisionnottoactinwayswhichmay "$$ provokejailofficersto teachhimalesson.L.G.sTourettes $& Syndromeimpairedhiscapacitytopreventthebehaviorwhichwould ,&|!(  leadtotheassaultbyDonnelly.Wethereforefindnoclearerror '(#* inthedistrictcourtsconclusionthatL.G.wasa vulnerable  victimundersection3A1.1. \    B.DefendantsKnowledgeofUnusualVulnerability X l   ` Wenowturntothesecondelementofthevulnerable   victimenhancement,thatDonnellykneworshouldhaveknownof `  L.G.sparticularsusceptibilitytotheassault.Beforedoingso,  \  however,thereisanevidentiarymatterwemustconsider:which   factsareproperlybeforethisCourtinourconsiderationofthis d  issue.Donnellyarguesthatweshouldnotconsiderasfactthe `  statementcontainedinthePSRandthegovernmentspresentationof   predicatefactsatthepleahearingthattheofficersshouted, h  WellbeattheTourettesoutofyou,duringL.G.sassault. d Donnellyassertsthatthestatementistoovaguebecausethereis  noindicationastowhichoftheofficersmadethestatement. l DonnellyalsoarguesthatbecauseL.G.didnotmentionthe h statementduringhistrialtestimony,thecourterredinfinding  thestatementa factprovenbyapreponderanceoftheevidence. p  Wedisagree.Thesentencingjudgeproperlytookintoaccounthis !l" observationsofL.G.whenhetestifiedatthetrialofDonnellys "$ coconspirators., #  6      #X  X X X ]_# X  X XX ԀThestatementsmadeinthePSRandthe t$& governmentspresentationofpredicatefactswerealsoproperly  &p!( consideredbecauseDonnellyfailedtoobjecttothestatementsin  atimelymanner.- #  7      ׀Sincethesentencingcourtmayproperlyadopt \ thestatementasfact,wefindthatitisproperforustoconsider X thestatementwhenaddressingthematternowbeforethisCourt.      ` Donnellychallengestheapplicationofsection3A1.1 `  arguingthattherecorddoesnotsupportafinding,eitherdirectly  \  orbyinference,thatDonnellykneworshouldhaveknownthatL.G.   wasunusuallyvulnerable.#X  X X X Js# X  X XX Ԁ#X  X X X v# X  X XX Afterreviewingtherecord,itdoesnot d  appearthatthetrialjudgeexplicitlyaddressedthiselementof `  thevulnerablevictimcalculus.Thedistrictjudgedid,however,   makeageneralfindingthatthevulnerablevictimenhancement h appliedinthiscaseand,bysodoing,implicitlyfoundthat d DonnellykneworshouldhaveknownofL.G.svulnerability.     ` Ourdeterminationthattheplainerrorstandardmustbe l appliedtothesecondprongofthisanalysisplacesasubstantial h burdenonDonnelly#X  X X X 7w# X  X XX : Wheretheerrordefendantassertsonappeal  dependsuponafactualfindingthedefendantneglectedtoaskthe p  districtcourttomake,theerrorcannotbeclearorobvious !l" unlessthedesiredfactualfindingistheonlyonerationally  supportedbytherecordbelow.UnitedStatesv.OlivierDiaz,13 \ F.3d1,5(1stCir.1993).#X  X X X $z# X  X XX WefindthatDonnellyfailstomeethis X burdenthattheonlyrationalconclusionsupportedbytherecordis   thatDonnellydidnotknowofL.G.sunusualvulnerability.The `  evidenceintherecordwhichwouldtendtosupportaconclusion  \  thatDonnellykneworshouldhaveknownofL.G.sunusual   vulnerabilityincludes:(1)thedistrictjudgesownobservations d  ofL.G.,whichincludedTourettesrelatedoutbursts;(2)that `  duringthebeatingofL.G.,oneoftheofficerswasheardyelling,    WellbeattheTourettesoutofyou;and(3)thatjustpriorto h L.G.sassault,L.G.said, Youpeoplemakefunofmearoundhere d allthetimeandIcantsaynothingaboutit.Clearlythen,we  cannotconcludethatafindingthatDonnellydidnotknoworshould l nothaveknownofL.G.sunusualvulnerabilityistheonlyfinding h rationallysupportedbytherecord.Whilethedistrictcourts  silenceissomewhattroublesome,werejectDonnellysargumentthat p  thedistrictjudgecommittedplainerrorwhenhefoundthe !l" vulnerablevictimenhancementapplicabletotheL.G.incident.#X  X X X 7|# X  X XX  "$   IV.Conclusion t$& R   ` Forthereasonssetforthherein,thesentenceofthe  &p!( districtcourtis affirmed .#X  X X X #Ԁ