[DO NOT PUBLISH]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 D istrict 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 62 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 iden tity 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, t he 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
governme nt then a sked Headley to examine a check that was dated May 4, 2014

. Headley testified that her former name and Hialeah address were printe d 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 63 know the defendant and never authorized the defendant or anyone else to use her name and signature for this particular check. Victoria Spivey, an investig ator for Bank of America, also testified for the governmen t. 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 co unts 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 acqui ttal 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 o n 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 governmen t 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 64 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 convictio n for aggravate d 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 sufficient ly 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 con cluded that a false driver’s license

Case: 16-12937 Date Filed: 12/21/2016 Page: 4 of 65 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 bindi ng precedent in this C ircuit, 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 previous ly 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. Viewin g 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 addr ess listed on the check for over

Case: 16-12937 Date Filed: 12/21/2016 Page: 5 of 66 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 identif ying 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 identi fying information that belonged to a specific person. AFFIRMED. Case: 16-12937 Date Filed: 12/21/2016 Page: 6 of 6