United States v. Pol-Flores
644 F.3d 1
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Pol-Flores referred two investors to Herrero-Rovira, who defrauded them of $290,000.
- Pol was the Polarco incorporator, president, and the only authorized signer on the account.
- CLIEGG, run by Herrero and Pol, received the funds but did not invest them; funds were transferred and withdrawn.
- Pol communicated with Herrero and had multiple interactions; $20,000 of investors’ funds reached Pol’s company.
- Pol was convicted by a jury on ten counts of wire fraud and sentenced to 37 months’ imprisonment.
- The district court applied a two-level vulnerable victim enhancement and a twelve-level loss enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aiding and abetting | Pol participated with intent to defraud. | Challenge to aiding-and-abetting liability; less participation. | Reasonable jury could find Pol aided and abetted. |
| Proper application of vulnerable victim enhancement | District court correctly found vulnerability of the senior investor. | Court erred or should consider circumstances differently. | Enhancement properly applied. |
| Loss enhancement under § 2B1.1 | Foreseeable loss of $290,000 supported the 12-level increase. | No precise foreseeability or misappropriation shown. | Loss enhancement upheld. |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | District court should have granted a downward variance. | No rigid variance requirement; within range. | Sentence affirmed; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Baltas, 236 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2001) (de novo sufficiency review for aiding and abetting)
- United States v. Vazquez-Botet, 532 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 2008) (elements beyond reasonable doubt standard for conviction)
- United States v. Serrano, 870 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1989) (aiding and abetting requires association and shared intent)
- United States v. Bailey, 405 F.3d 102 (1st Cir. 2005) (standard for applying vulnerable victim enhancement; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Thurston, 456 F.3d 211 (1st Cir. 2006) (variance and proportional sentencing considerations)