United States v. Tarek Bouanane
24-1133
3rd Cir.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Appellants Tarek Bouanane and Roderick Feurtado participated in a "grandparent scam" that targeted elderly Pittsburgh residents, fraudulently collecting over $250,000.
- Bouanane acted as a "bail bondsman," physically collecting cash from victims after calls led them to believe their grandchildren were in trouble; Feurtado managed and recruited the collectors.
- Each was convicted at trial for conspiracy to commit wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1349.
- Bouanane received a 46-month sentence; Feurtado received a 120-month sentence, the latter being an upward variance from the guideline range.
- On appeal, both challenged the District Court's application of the sentencing enhancements and calculations, with Feurtado also contesting the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Bouanane/Feurtado's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vulnerable victim upward adjustment | It was improperly applied based only on victims' age and no individualized findings | Victims were particularly vulnerable due to being grandparents, and conspirators exploited this | Adjustment was proper; victims were particularly targeted and vulnerability exploited |
| Minor/minimal participant downward adjustment | Bouanane played a minor role, lacking decision authority | Bouanane was at least an average participant with understanding and a critical role | No clear error; adjustment denied |
| Zero-point offender downward adjustment | Bouanane should qualify based on no criminal history | Disqualified due to vulnerable victim adjustment | Adjustment was correctly denied |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence (Feurtado) | Sentence excessive, mitigating factors underweighted | Upward variance justified due to seriousness and leadership | Sentence was reasonable and within District Court discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Adeolu, 836 F.3d 330 (3d Cir. 2016) (sets out vulnerable victim enhancement standard)
- United States v. Zats, 298 F.3d 182 (3d Cir. 2002) (focuses on the nexus between vulnerability and crime)
- United States v. Womack, 55 F.4th 219 (3d Cir. 2022) (discusses mitigating role adjustments)
- United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc) (clarifies standard for substantive reasonableness of sentences)
- United States v. Seligsohn, 981 F.2d 1418 (3d Cir. 1992) (relevant to finding particular vulnerability)