[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-12937

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-20672-KMW-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

EMELYS GONZALEZ, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(December 21, 2016)

Before MARTIN, JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 16-12937 Date Filed: 12/21/2016 Page: 1 of 6 
2

Emelys Gonzalez appeals her conviction for aggravated identity theft in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). After careful review, we affirm.

I.

A grand jury indicted Gonzalez on five counts, charging her with: (1) one 

count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349; (2) 

three counts of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344; and (3) one count of 

aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). Because 

Gonzalez challenges only her conviction for aggravated identity theft on appeal, 

we summarize only the evidence relevant to that count. 

On December 8, 2015, the government produced Amy Headley as a witness

at Gonzalez’s trial. Headley testified that she was previously known as “Amy 

Elannan” because of an earlier marriage, but had used the name “Headley” since 

1998. She also said she lived in Hialeah, Florida twenty years earlier. The 

government then asked Headley to examine a check that was dated May 4, 2014. 

Headley testified that her former name and Hialeah address were printed on the 

top-left corner of the check. Although the name on the signature line of the check 

read “Amy M. Elannan,” Headley stated that it was not her signature, and that she 

had not “used that signature in years.” She observed that the check was made out 

to an “Evelyn Gonzalez” for $4,000, but said she did not know anyone who went 

by that name or by “Emelys Gonzalez.” Headley also testified that she did not 

Case: 16-12937 Date Filed: 12/21/2016 Page: 2 of 6 
3

know the defendant and never authorized the defendant or anyone else to use her 

name and signature for this particular check. Victoria Spivey, an investigator for 

Bank of America, also testified for the government. She stated there was a $4,000 

deposit to Gonzalez’s Bank of America account on May 4, 2014 via an automated

teller machine in North Hialeah. 

After the government finished presenting its evidence, Gonzalez moved for 

a judgment of acquittal on all counts pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 29. With regard to the aggravated identity theft count, she argued there 

was not enough evidence to establish that “Amy M. Elannan” was a name that 

belonged to a specific person. She also asserted acquittal was appropriate under 

United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 230 (4th Cir. 2008). The district court denied 

Gonzalez’s Rule 29 motion as to the aggravated identity theft count, noting 

Headley’s testimony that she previously lived at the address listed on the check and 

went by the name “Amy Elannan.” The jury later found Gonzalez guilty on all 

five counts. The district court sentenced her to a total of 25-months imprisonment. 

II.

On appeal, Gonzalez argues the district court erred when it denied her 

motion for judgment of acquittal because the government failed to prove the name 

she used to commit her offense (“Amy Elannan”) belonged to a specific person. 

Put another way, Gonzalez asserts the government presented identifying 

Case: 16-12937 Date Filed: 12/21/2016 Page: 3 of 6 
4

information that was too general to identify a specific person. “We review de novo

the denial of a defendant’s properly-preserved motion for judgment of acquittal.” 

United States v. Holmes, 814 F.3d 1246, 1250 (11th Cir. 2016). Such a denial will 

be upheld if, viewing all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the 

government, “a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the evidence establishes 

the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quotation omitted). 

To sustain a conviction for aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1028A(a)(1), the government “must establish that the defendant (1) knowingly 

transferred, possessed, or used; (2) the means of identification of another person; 

(3) without lawful authority; (4) during and in relation to a felony enumerated in 

§ 1028A(c),” which includes bank fraud. United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 

1178, 1192 (11th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted); 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(c)(5). The 

statute defines a “means of identification” as “any name or number that may be 

used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific 

individual.” 18 U.S.C. § 1028(d)(7) (emphasis added). 

Gonzalez argues the government failed to meet its burden because the name 

and signature of “Amy Elannan” are not sufficiently unique to identify a specific 

person under Mitchell. Mitchell is a Fourth Circuit case holding that under 

§ 1028A, “a bare name . . . is not likely to be sufficiently unique . . . to identify a 

specific person.” 518 F.3d at 235. It also concluded that a false driver’s license 

Case: 16-12937 Date Filed: 12/21/2016 Page: 4 of 6 
5

with a first and last name (“Marcus Jackson”), city of residence, and birth year that 

all matched a specific person was not sufficient to tie the false license to that 

person. Id. at 235–36. Even if Mitchell was binding precedent in this Circuit, it 

would not help Gonzalez here. The government’s evidence showed Gonzalez used 

not only Headley’s former name and signature, but also Headley’s previous 

address, to commit bank fraud. At trial, Headley said she was previously known as 

“Amy Elannan” and used to live at the address listed on the check. She also 

testified that the “Amy M. Elannan” signature on the check was not hers, and that 

she never gave anyone permission to use her name and signature for the check. 

Viewing these facts in the light most favorable to the government, a reasonable 

jury could conclude that Gonzalez used the “means of identification” of a specific 

person—Amy Headley—to commit bank fraud. In other words, a check with a

first name, last name, and address that all match a specific person’s previous 

identification information contains sufficiently unique identifiers to tie the check to 

that person. 

Gonzalez also argues the government failed to prove the name “Amy 

Elannan” belonged to a specific person because Headley stopped using the name 

“Elannan” more than sixteen years before the issuance of the check and eight years 

before the account associated with the check was opened in 2006. She also notes 

that Headley had not lived at the Hialeah address listed on the check for over 

Case: 16-12937 Date Filed: 12/21/2016 Page: 5 of 6 
6

twenty years and was not living there when the account was opened. However, 

nothing in the relevant statute requires the “means of identification” to be 

contemporary or up-to-date. See 18 U.S.C. § 1028(d)(7). The identifying 

information need only be sufficiently unique “to identify a specific individual.” Id.

In this case, Headley’s former name and address taken together are sufficiently 

unique for a reasonable jury to conclude Gonzalez committed bank fraud using 

identifying information that belonged to a specific person.

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 16-12937 Date Filed: 12/21/2016 Page: 6 of 6