United States v. Tyler Sullivan

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 14-2469
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Tyler G. Sullivan
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Aberdeen
____________
Submitted: February 17, 2015
Filed: February 27, 2015
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Tyler Sullivan directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he
pled guilty to assisting his co-defendant as accessory after the fact to an assault resulting
1
The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the
District of South Dakota.
in serious bodily injury. In a brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967), his counsel challenges the district court’s application of U.S.S.G.
§ 3A1.1(b)(1) (vulnerable-victim enhancement) in calculating Sullivan’s advisory
range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Counsel has moved to
withdraw.
The district court did not clearly err in imposing the 2-level enhancement for
a vulnerable victim. The evidence presented at the sentencing hearing was sufficient
for the district court to find that Sullivan knew or should have known the victim was
unusually vulnerable when she was assaulted by his co-defendant. See United States
v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (2-level enhancement appropriate if
defendant knew or should have known victim of offense was unusually vulnerable due
to physical or mental condition); United States v. Hagen, 641 F.3d 268, 271-72 (8th
Cir. 2011) (whether defendant knew or should have known victim was vulnerable is
fact determination reviewed for clear error); United States v. Betone, 636 F.3d 384,
388 (8th Cir. 2011) (upholding vulnerable victim enhancement where victim had
passed out from intoxication); United States v. Plenty, 335 F.3d 732, 735 (8th Cir.
2003) (victim who was asleep and could not fight back was unusually vulnerable).
An independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80
(1988), reveals no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.
The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
______________________________
-2-