of a vulnerable class. The court sentenced Medrano to a 24-month term of incarceration, a five-year term of supervised release and ordered payment of $185,988.36 in restitution and $1,500 in special penalty assessments. II. Analysis A Vulnerable Victim Enhancement Medrano contends the evidence presented at her sentencing hearing does not warrant the district court’s application of the “vulnerable victim” enhancement. We review a district court’s construction, interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. United States v. Randall, 162 F.3d 557, 560 (9th Cir.1998). We review a district court’s factual findings regarding the vulnerability of victims for clear error. United States v. Archdale, 229 F.3d 861, 869 (9th Cir.2000). Congress has evi th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). A vulnerable victim enhancement cannot,
holding that thirteen fraudulent uses of credit cards were not pursuant to a single scheme recognizing statutory credit holding that comment on absence of explanation as well as insufficiency of girlfriends explanation for defendants possession of stolen credit cards was not harmless error since defendant was only person other than his girlfriend who could have explained the possession of the credit cards holding victims with poor credit histories were particularly susceptible to schemes involving offers of preapproved credit cards holding that a mailing which stated because of your excellent credit you have been preapproved for a home loan up to 100 of the value of your home  was a firm offer of credit