# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 3- 37 87

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Edu ard o R od rig ue z-Ay al a

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa , W at erl oo

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Octo be r 10 , 20 14 Fil ed : Dec em

be r 5, 2 01 4

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and BYE, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Edu ard o Ro dr ig ue z-Ay al a was co nv ic te d by a ju r y on on e co un t of un la wfu l

po ss es si on of id en ti ty do cu m en ts , on e co un t of m ak in g a fal se st at em en t in a pa ss po rt

ap pl ic at io n, two co un ts of m ak in g a fal se cl ai m to U.S. c it iz en sh ip , a nd two co un ts of ag gr av at ed id en ti t y t h eft

. He ap pe al s fro m th e jud gm en t en te red by th e di st ric tco ur t, arg ui n g t h at th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t hi s co nv ic ti on s fo r 1

m ak in g a f

a l se cl ai m to U.S. ci ti zen sh ip
, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 91 1, an d fo r
ag gr av at ed id en ti ty the ft, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 10 28 A(a)(1 ). W e aff irm.

Ro dr ig ue z-Ay al a is a ci ti zen of Mex ic o. He ap pl ie d fo r an Io wa id en ti fic at io n card us in g th e na m e Ram on Ro dr ig ue z an d pr es en te d th e fo ll owi ng id en ti fy in g do cu m en ts : a Mi ss ou ri id en ti fic at io n card
, a so ci al se cu rit y card
, a fal si fie d U.S. bi rth

cert ifi cat e, an d an em

pl oyee id en ti fic at io n c a r d

. Alt ho ug h th e or ig in al Io wa
ap pl ic at io n di d no t req ui re hi m to di sc lo se hi s ci ti zen sh ip
, th e co m pl et ed r e c o r d of

ap pl ic at io n th at he si gn ed in di cat ed th at he was a U.S. ci ti zen

. Ro dr ig ue z-Ay al a was is su ed an Io wa id en ti fic at io n card be ari ng th e na m e Ram on Ro dr ig ue z. He us ed th at card an d th e sa m e fal si fie d U.S. bi rth cert ifi cat e to ap p l y f o r a U

. S. pa ss po rt. The

pa ss po rt ap pl i c a t i o n t h at he si gn ed st at ed th at he was a “ ci ti zen or no n- ci ti zen

na ti on al of t he Uni te d S ta te s.”

Ro dr ig ue z-Ay al a’s br ot he r is na m ed Ram on Ro dr ig ue z. Ram on was bo rn in 2
Mex ic o a n d i s a Mex ic an ci ti zen

. The fal si fie d U.S. bi rth cert ifi cat e us ed by
R o dr ig ue z-Ay al a li st ed Ram on ’s da te of bi rth an d na m ed th e m en ’s pa ren ts , b u t i t li st ed a bi rth pl ace lo cat ed in th e Un i t ed St at es

. In th e ap pl ic at io ns fo r th e id en ti fic at io n card an d pa ss po rt, Ro dr ig ue z-Ay al a us ed a so ci al se cu rit y nu m be r an d

an ad dr es s th at di d no t be lo ng to Ram on

. Mo reo ve r, Ram on di d no t wor k fo r th e

co m pa ny sh own on th e em

pl oyee id en ti fic at io n card th at Ro dr ig ue z-Ay al a pr es en te d

to ob ta in th e Io wa id en ti fic at io n c ard

.

Ro dr ig ue z-Ay al a ap pe al s th e co nv ic t i on s fo r m ak in g a fal se cl ai m to U.S.
ci ti zen sh ip an d fo r ag gr av at ed id en ti ty th eft
, arg ui ng th a t th e ev id en ce was

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de
, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1 th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.
Fo r th e sa ke of c la rit y , we refer to Ram on Ro dr ig ue z b y hi s fi rs t n am e. 2

-2

-in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e co nv ic ti on s. W e rev ie w th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce de

no vo , vi ewin g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t favo rab le to th e ve rd ic t. Uni te d St at es v. Al dr id ge , 66 4 F .3d 70 5, 7 15 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

It is a cri m e un de r 18 U.S.C. § 91 1 to fal se ly an d wil lfu ll y rep res en t on es el f to be a ci ti zen of th e Uni te d St at es

. Ro dr ig ue z-Ay al a arg ue s th at th e go ve rn m en t fai le d

to pr ov e th at he m ad e a fal se cl ai m of U.S. c it iz en sh ip an d th at an y su ch cla im was wil lfu l. He rel ie s on Uni te d St at es v. Karao un i, 37 9 F.3 d 11 39
, 11 42 -4 3 (9 th Ci r. 20 04 ), whi ch he ld th at m erel y ch eck in g a bo x cl ai m in g to be a U.S. ci ti zen or na ti on al
di d no t vi ol at e § 91 1 be cau se th e st at ut e “ co ve rs on ly fal se cl ai m s of U.S. ci ti zen sh ip

an d no t fal se cl ai m s of U.S. na ti on al it y .” Id

. at 11 42 -4 3. Karao un i is di st in gu is ha bl e, ho wev er, be cau se in ad di ti on to cl ai m in g to be a U.S. “ ci ti zen or no n- ci ti zen

na ti on al ,” Ro dr ig ue z-Ay al a al so pr ov id ed a fal si fie d U.S. bi rth cert ifi cat e in su pp or t of hi s pa ss po rt ap pl ic at io n. Thu s, the ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t to al lo w a reas on ab le jury to co nv ic t hi m on th e co un t of m ak in g a fal se cl ai m to U.S. ci ti zen sh ip th at rel at ed to th e pa ss po rt ap pl ic at io n. See Uni te d St at es v. Ro dr ig ue z Serr at e, 53 4 F.2 d 7, 11 (1 st Ci r. 19 76 ) (h ol di ng th at pr es en ti ng a fra ud ul en t U.S. b irt h c ert ifi cat e to a

cu st om s of

fic er s e e k i n g to de te rm in e th e na ti on al it y of arri vi ng pa ss en ge rs

co ns ti tu te d a vi ol at io n o f § 9 11 ).

Ro dr ig ue z-Ay al a al so arg ue s th at th e go ve rn men t f a i l ed to pr ov e th at he
wil l f u l l y made a fal se cl ai m of U.S. ci ti zen sh ip in hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r an Io wa id en ti fic at io n card

. He co nt en ds th at he di d no t m ak e a fal se cl ai m to U.S. ci ti zen sh ip
be cau se th e or ig in al Io wa ap pl ic at io n di d no t req ui re hi m to st at e hi s ci ti zen sh ip

. Bu t th e co m pl et ed reco rd of a pp li cat io n s ta te d t ha t h e was a U.S. c it iz en , a nd he si gn ed
th e reco rd of ap p l i c a t i o n , at te st in g th at al l of th e fact s in it were tru e. Ro dr ig ue zAy al a al so co nt en ds th at he di d no t in te nd to fal se ly cl ai m U.S. ci ti zen sh ip
, arg ui ng
t h at be cau se he sp eak s on ly Sp an is h, he di d no t un de rs ta nd th at th e reco rd o f

ap pl ic at io n in cl ud ed an at te st at io n to U.S. ci ti zen sh ip

. The ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t, ho wev er, to sh ow th at Ro dr ig ue z-Ay al a su bm it t e d wit h hi s Io wa ap pl ic at io n a

-3

-fal si fie d U.S. bi rth cert ifi cat e an d a U.S. so ci al se cu rit y card as pr oo f of hi s id en ti ty.

Eve n as su m in g Ro dr ig ue z-Ay al a di d no t u n d e rs ta nd th e fo rm , hi s su bm is si on of
do cu m en ts pu rp or ti ng to sh ow th at he was a U.S. ci ti zen was su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e

co nv ic ti on

.

It i s a c rime und er 1 8 U.S.C. § 10 28 A(a)(1 ) to us e “ a m ean s o f id en ti fic at io n of an ot he r pe rs on ” in rel at io n to m ak in g a fal se cl ai m of U.S. ci ti zen sh ip

. “ Mea ns of
id en ti fic at io n” is de fin ed as “ an y na m e or nu m be r th at m ay be us ed
, al on e or in

co nju nc ti on wit h an y ot he r in fo rm at io n, to id en ti fy a sp eci fic in di vi du al .” 18 U.S.C. § 10 28 (d )(7 ). Ro dr ig ue z-Ay al a co nt en ds th at th e in fo rm at io n he pr ov id ed to ob ta in
th e id en ti fic at io n card an d pa ss po rt di d no t c o n st it ut e “ a m ean s of id en ti fic at io n of

an ot he r pe rs on ,” as de fin ed by the st at ut e. W e d is ag ree.

Ro dr ig ue z-Ay al a’s us e o f hi s b ro th er’s na m e, da te of bi rth , a nd th e na m es of
th ei r pa ren ts to ob ta in th e id en ti fic at io n card an d pa ss po rt was su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h
th at he us ed th e m ean s of id en ti fic at io n of a sp eci fic in di vi du al
, ev en th ou gh he al so

us ed a fal se ad dr es s, bi rth pl ace, so ci al se cu rit y nu m be r, an d p l a c e o f em

pl oym en t. Co m pa re Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn, 43 0 F. App ’x 19 8, 20 0 (3 d Ci r. 20 11 ) (h ol di ng th at th e us e of a real pe rs on ’s fir st an d la st na m es an d da te of bi rth was su f f i c i e nt to

co ns ti tu te th e “ m ean s of

id en ti fic at io n of an ot he r pe rs on ,” ev en th ou gh th e ad dr es s

an d dr iv er’s li cen se nu m be r were di ffer en t fro m th e real pe rs on ’s an d th e real

pe rs on ’s m id dl e na m e was no t us ed ), wit h Uni te d Stat es v. Mit ch el l, 51 8 F.3d 23 0,
23 5- 23 6 (4t h Ci r. 20 08 ) (h ol di ng th at th e us e of a real pe rs on ’s fir st an d las t nam es , y ear of bi rth
, an d ci ty of res id en ce was no t su ffi ci en t to c o n s t it ut e a “ m ean s of
id en ti fic at io n of an ot he r pe rs on ” whe n th e real pe rs on ’s ad dr es s, da te of bi rth
, an d

m id dl e na m e were n ot us ed ). Desp it e Ro dr ig ue z-Ay al a’s arg um en t to th e co nt rary, th e go ve rn m en t was no t req ui red to pr ov e la ck of vi ct im ’s c o n s e nt to pr ov e
ag gr av at ed id en ti ty th eft

. Uni te d S t a t e s v. Ret an a, 64 1 F.3 d 27 2, 27 4- 75 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). F in al ly, to th e ex te nt Ro dr ig ue z-Ay al a arg ue s th at th e g ov ern m en t fa il ed to

pr ov e th at he us ed “ a m ean s of id en ti fic at io n of an ot he r pe rs on ” kn owi ng ly, we ho ld

-4

-th at a jury cou ld reas on ab ly find th at Ro dr ig ue z-Ay al a k ne w th at a sp eci fic pe rs on ,

i.e. , hi s b ro th er, ex is te d wi th th e n am e, da te of b irt h, an d p aren ts ’ na m es he us ed

.

W e aff irm.

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-