UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 95-5861

WILLIAM THOMAS BASKIN,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CR-95-247)

Submitted: May 31, 1996

Decided: July 22, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Alan H. Yamamoto, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F.
Fahey, United States Attorney, Irvin McCreary Allen, Special Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

William Thomas Baskin appeals from his conviction and subse-
quent sentence for twenty-three counts of bank fraud and two counts
of bank embezzlement. We affirm.

Baskin contends that the district court made two errors during the
course of his trial and sentencing hearing which warrant this court's
vacatur of his conviction and sentence. First, he contends that the dis-
trict court improperly admitted hearsay statements into evidence, thus
violating his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses brought
against him. Second, he contends that the district court's application
of U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1 to enhance his offense level two points for tar-
geting vulnerable victims was in error because there was insufficient
evidence that the victims were in fact vulnerable or that he targeted
them due to any existing vulnerability.

Turning first to Baskin's Confrontation Clause claim, our review
reveals that the hearsay statement possessed the particularized guaran-
tees of trustworthiness sufficient to withstand a Sixth Amendment
challenge. Idaho v. Wright, 

(1990). Accordingly, we
find that the district court's admission of the evidence does not consti-
tute clear error. United States v. Smith, 

, 443-44 (4th Cir.
1986), cert. denied, 

(1987). We also find no violation
of Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(5) in the admission of this evidence.

Addressing Baskin's claim of sentencing error, we find that the
evidence adduced at trial and mentioned by the district court demon-
strated that two of Baskin's victims were senior citizens who pos-
sessed inactive bank accounts that were not closely monitored.
Further, in his written response to the presentence report, Baskin
admitted that he targeted these victims due to the inactivity of their
accounts. J.A. 275. We find these factors sufficient to justify the dis-
trict court's application of § 3A1.1's two-level enhancement. Accord-
ingly, we find no evidence of clear error on this claim either.

Having thus disposed of all claims raised in Baskin's formal brief,
we affirm Baskin's conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral

                     2
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pres-
ented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3