United States v. Angela Dione Rosier

Case: 14-10956 Date Filed: 10/24/2014 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-10956
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:13-cr-60258-JIC-5
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANGELA DIONE ROSIER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(October 24, 2014)
Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-10956 Date Filed: 10/24/2014 Page: 2 of 3
Angela Dione Rosier appeals her sentence of 49 months of imprisonment,
which she received after pleading guilty to conspiring to commit access device
fraud. 18 U.S.C. § 1029(b)(2). Rosier challenges the two-level enhancement of her
sentence for targeting a vulnerable victim. United States Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 3A1.1(b)(1) (Nov. 2013). We affirm.
The district court did not clearly err in finding that Rosier “knew or should
have known that a victim of [her] offense was a vulnerable victim.” Id. Rosier
worked as a secretary and a data entry clerk for a company that provided in-home
phlebotomy services for elderly and invalid patients. Rosier gave her network
username and password to a person who then accessed the company’s database and
downloaded the personal identification information of 1,308 patients. The district
court was entitled to find that Rosier had observed the birthdates and ailments of
patients and knew the patients were susceptible to identity theft because of their
“advancing or elderly age” and because of their medical conditions. See United
States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213, 1289 (11th Cir. 2011) (concluding that AIDS and
hemophilia patients “were vulnerable due to their medical condition”); United
States v. Yount, 960 F.2d 955, 957 (11th Cir. 1992) (concluding that trust
accountholders were vulnerable victims because of their advanced age and
inability to manage their finances).
2
Case: 14-10956 Date Filed: 10/24/2014 Page: 3 of 3
Even if the district court had erred by enhancing Rosier’s sentence, that error
would have been be harmless. The district court stated that it would have imposed
the same sentence even if it had “improperly imposed” the enhancement. See
United States v. Keene, 470 F.3d 1347, 1349 (11th Cir. 2006). Rosier’s sentence,
which is eight months less than the low end of her advisory guidelines range of 57
to 71 months and well below her maximum statutory sentence of five years, is
reasonable.
We AFFIRM Rosier’s sentence.
3