United States v. Iriri, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10434

Defendant pleaded guilty to federal wire fraud for a long-running online "romance scam" (2013–2015) in which she and accomplices created fake dating profiles and persuaded victims to wire money for fictitious emergencies or opportunities.
Sentencing focused on 21 victims (ages ~47–71) who collectively lost about $2.2 million; multiple victims submitted powerful victim-impact statements describing severe financial and emotional harm.
Sentencing guidelines range was calculated at 78–97 months after a two-level vulnerable-victim enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1); absent the enhancement the range would have been 63–78 months.
The district court applied the vulnerable-victim enhancement based on victims’ age, lack of sophistication, isolation, and the defendant’s purposeful targeting; the court also found the guideline range understated the seriousness and impact of the crimes.
The court imposed a 120-month prison sentence (10 years), an upward variance 23 months above the top of the guideline range, citing deterrence, public protection, and enduring risk given the defendant’s skills and potential ability to continue scams abroad.
Defendant appealed only the vulnerable-victim enhancement; the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment in all respects.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of vulnerable‑victim enhancement (U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1))	Government: victims were "unusually vulnerable" due to age, loneliness, lack of sophistication, and the defendant knew or should have known this; enhancement appropriate.	Iriri: enhancement challenged (argues victims not unusually vulnerable).	Affirmed — victims (many elderly, isolated, financially targeted) were unusually vulnerable and defendant targeted them.
Reasonableness of upward variance above guidelines	Government/District Court: longer sentence needed for deterrence, public protection, and because guidelines underappreciated emotional/financial impact.	Iriri: did not challenge the variance on appeal.	Affirmed — court may impose a sentence above the guideline range after considering § 3553(a) factors; upward variance was reasonable.

United States v. Jackson, 95 F.3d 500 (7th Cir. 1996) (repeated victimization in romance‑scam context)
United States v. Sims, 329 F.3d 937 (7th Cir. 2003) (elderly victims satisfy § 3A1.1(b)(1))
United States v. Sullivan, 765 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 2014) (targeting elderly/unsophisticated victims supports vulnerable‑victim enhancement)
United States v. Rumsavich, 313 F.3d 407 (7th Cir. 2002) (fraudsters frequently target elderly victims)
United States v. Christiansen, 594 F.3d 571 (7th Cir. 2010) (defendant cultivated intimacy to identify most vulnerable marks)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sentencer must consider § 3553(a) factors and may vary from the Guidelines)