United States v. Katie Boll
3 F.4th 1099
| 8th Cir. | 2021Background
- Katie Boll, a hospice nurse, stole or tampered with opioids and other pain medications intended for 14 patients while on duty.
- She confessed, expressed remorse, and pleaded guilty to two counts: tampering with a consumer product (18 U.S.C. § 1365(a)) and acquiring controlled substances by deception (21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(3)).
- The parties agreed Boll exploited vulnerable victims (U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1)) but disputed whether the additional two-level enhancement for "a large number of vulnerable victims" (§ 3A1.1(b)(2)(B)) applied.
- The district court applied the large-number enhancement, emphasizing Boll’s hands-on role, her special nursing responsibility, and that she harmed 14 patients in a facility with about 97 potential victims.
- Boll appealed the application of the § 3A1.1(b)(2)(B) enhancement; the Eighth Circuit reviewed guideline interpretation de novo and factual findings for clear error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 14 victims qualifies as a "large number of vulnerable victims" under U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(2)(B) | 14 is a large number given the hands-on nature of the offense and the nurse’s special trust/responsibility; enhancement properly applied | 14 is not a large number as a matter of law; "large" requires either an absolute cutoff or a higher victim count in this context | Affirmed. "Large" is relative to offenses of like kind; considering offense-of-conviction and relevant conduct, 14 exceeded the typical number and justified the enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hackman, 630 F.3d 1078 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard: de novo review of guideline interpretation; use construction rules)
- United States v. Anderson, 349 F.3d 568 (8th Cir. 2003) (noting "large number" in § 3A1.1(b)(2) is largely uninterpreted)
- Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (1993) (Court compares statutory language to provisions with explicit numeric cutoffs)
- Wis. Cent. Ltd. v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2067 (2018) (use dictionary definitions to interpret ordinary words)
- Jama v. ICE, 543 U.S. 335 (2005) (hesitance to infer omitted statutory requirements when text shows how to impose numeric cutoffs)
- United States v. Kentz, 251 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2001) (rejects limiting the enhancement to contexts like telemarketing fraud)