victims were illiterate. Jessup also admitted she could not state with certainty that all of Medrano’s victims lacked knowledge of banking practices. Nonetheless, the district court determined that the vulnerable victim enhancement was warranted because “virtually all” of Medrano’s victims were Spanish-speaking, illiterate and unsophisticated in banking practices. Application of the vulnerable victim enhancement does not require that the district court find all of the victims were particularly susceptible to Medrano’s scheme. Rather, “the judge must determine whether one or more of the victims” belong to a class that is particularly susceptible to the criminal activity in question. United States v. Luca, 183 F.3d 1018, 1025 (9th Cir.1999); See U.S. v. Scrivener, 189 F.3d at 952 (<HOLDING>). Although the precise number of Medrano’s
holding that application of  2a31 is appropriate even when the victim is fictional as an enhancement for a fictitious victim is consistent with the utilitarian purpose of the enhancement holding bank customers affected by embezzlement could be victims for purposes of vulnerable victim enhancement holding vulnerable victim factor sufficiently supported by evidence that victim was 82 and physically unable to resist attackers holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction holding a single vulnerable victim is sufficient to support application of the vulnerable victim enhancement