United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-3787

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Eduardo Rodriguez-Ayala

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa, Waterloo

____________

 Submitted: October 10, 2014

 Filed: December 5, 2014

____________

Before RILEY, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and BYE, Circuit Judges.

____________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Eduardo Rodriguez-Ayala was convicted by a jury on one count of unlawful

possession of identity documents, one count of making a false statement in a passport

application, two counts of making a false claim to U.S. citizenship, and two counts

of aggravated identity theft. He appeals from the judgment entered by the district
court, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for

1

making a false claim to U.S. citizenship, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 911, and for

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

Rodriguez-Ayala is a citizen of Mexico. He applied for an Iowa identification

card using the name Ramon Rodriguez and presented the following identifying

documents: a Missouri identification card, a socialsecurity card, a falsified U.S. birth

certificate, and an employee identification card. Although the original Iowa

application did not require him to disclose his citizenship, the completed record of

application that he signed indicated that he was a U.S. citizen. Rodriguez-Ayala was

issued an Iowa identification card bearing the name Ramon Rodriguez. He used that

card and the same falsified U.S. birth certificate to apply for a U.S. passport. The

passport application that he signed stated that he was a “citizen or non-citizen

national of the United States.” 

Rodriguez-Ayala’s brother is named Ramon Rodriguez. Ramon was born in 2

Mexico and is a Mexican citizen. The falsified U.S. birth certificate used by

Rodriguez-Ayala listed Ramon’s date of birth and named the men’s parents, but it

listed a birthplace located in the United States. In the applications for the

identification card and passport, Rodriguez-Ayala used a social security number and

an address that did not belong to Ramon. Moreover, Ramon did not work for the

company shown on the employee identification card that Rodriguez-Ayala presented

to obtain the Iowa identification card. 

Rodriguez-Ayala appeals the convictions for making a false claim to U.S.

citizenship and for aggravated identity theft, arguing that the evidence was

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

1

the Northern District of Iowa.

For the sake of clarity, we refer to Ramon Rodriguez by his first name. 2

-2-
insufficient to support the convictions. We review the sufficiency of the evidence de

novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. United States

v. Aldridge, 664 F.3d 705, 715 (8th Cir. 2011).

It is a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 911 to falsely and willfully represent oneself to

be a citizen of the United States. Rodriguez-Ayala argues that the government failed

to prove that he made a false claim of U.S. citizenship and that any such claim was

willful. He relies on United States v. Karaouni, 379 F.3d 1139, 1142-43 (9th Cir.

2004), which held that merely checking a box claiming to be a U.S. citizen or national

did not violate § 911 because the statute “covers only false claims of U.S. citizenship

and not false claims of U.S. nationality.” Id. at 1142-43. Karaouni is distinguishable,

however, because in addition to claiming to be a U.S. “citizen or non-citizen

national,” Rodriguez-Ayala also provided a falsified U.S. birth certificate in support

of his passport application. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to allow a reasonable

jury to convict him on the count of making a false claim to U.S. citizenship that

related to the passport application. See United States v. Rodriguez Serrate, 534 F.2d

7, 11 (1st Cir. 1976) (holding that presenting a fraudulent U.S. birth certificate to a

customs officer seeking to determine the nationality of arriving passengers

constituted a violation of § 911).

Rodriguez-Ayala also argues that the government failed to prove that he

willfully made a false claim of U.S. citizenship in his application for an Iowa

identification card. He contendsthat he did not make a false claimto U.S. citizenship

because the original Iowa application did not require him to state his citizenship. But

the completed record of application stated that he was a U.S. citizen, and he signed

the record of application, attesting that all of the facts in it were true. RodriguezAyala also contends that he did not intend to falsely claim U.S. citizenship, arguing

that because he speaks only Spanish, he did not understand that the record of

application included an attestation to U.S. citizenship. The evidence was sufficient,

however, to show that Rodriguez-Ayala submitted with his Iowa application a

-3-
falsified U.S. birth certificate and a U.S. social security card as proof of his identity. 

Even assuming Rodriguez-Ayala did not understand the form, his submission of

documents purporting to show that he was a U.S. citizen wassufficient to support the

conviction.

It is a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) to use “a means of identification

of another person” in relation to making a false claim of U.S. citizenship. “Means of

identification” is defined 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). Rodriguez-Ayala contends that the information he provided to obtain

the identification card and passport did not constitute “a means of identification of

another person,” as defined by the statute. We disagree.

Rodriguez-Ayala’s use of his brother’s name, date of birth, and the names of

their parents to obtain the identification card and passport was sufficient to establish

that he used the means of identification of a specific individual, even though he also

used a false address, birthplace, social security number, and place of employment. 

Compare United States v. Brown, 430 F. App’x 198, 200 (3d Cir. 2011) (holding that

the use of a real person’s first and last names and date of birth was sufficient to

constitute the “means of identification of another person,” even though the address

and driver’s license number were different from the real person’s and the real

person’s middle name was not used), with United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 230,

235-236 (4th Cir. 2008) (holding that the use of a real person’s first and last names,

year of birth, and city of residence was not sufficient to constitute a “means of

identification of another person” when the real person’s address, date of birth, and

middle name were not used). Despite Rodriguez-Ayala’s argument to the contrary,

the government was not required to prove lack of victim’s consent to prove

aggravated identity theft. United States v. Retana, 641 F.3d 272, 274-75 (8th Cir.

2011). Finally, to the extent Rodriguez-Ayala argues that the government failed to

prove that he used “a means of identification of another person” knowingly, we hold

-4-
that a jury could reasonably find that Rodriguez-Ayala knew that a specific person,

i.e., his brother, existed with the name, date of birth, and parents’ names he used.

We affirm.

______________________________

-5-