United States v. Michael Shinefield

MEMORANDUM

Michael Louis Shinefield appeals the sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to wire fraud, aiding and abetting, and causing an act to be done, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1348 and 2.We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a), and we affirm.

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the sentence to run consecutively to the sentence imposed by the California state court. See United States v. Kimbrew, 406 F.3d 1149, 1151 (9th Cir.2005); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 cmt. n. 3(C).

2. The record reflects that the district court was aware that it was applying a vulnerable victim enhancement. The court was not required to make further findings because the presentence reports contained sufficient undisputed facts to establish that Shinefield knew or should have known that some of his investors had fallen for the scheme before, and were therefore vulnerable to being “reloaded.” See United States v. Luca, 183 F.3d 1018, 1025 (9th Cir.1999). Finally, the enhancement was proper because “reloaded” victims are more vulnerable than typical victims of wire fraud. See United States v. Castaneda, 239 F.3d 978 , 980-81 & n. 4…