T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he H onor abl e J a ne A . R e s t a ni , C hi e f J udge , U . S . C ourtof ** I nt e rna t i ona l T r a de , s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT U N I TED STA TES O F A M ERI CA P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. R OB E R T O P OP A, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 08- 10129 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 6 - C R - 0 0 8 5 - J C MG WF ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da J a m e s C . M a ha n, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r7, 2009 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B e f o r e : H U G , P A E Z , C ir c u it J u d g e s , a n d R E S T A N I , Judg e. ** R o b e rto P o p aap p e a ls h is ju ryc o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e f o rC o n s p ir a c yto E ffectF rau d u l en tT ran sact i o n s w i th U n au th o ri zed A ccess D ev i ces & A ccess D e vi c e s i s s ue d t o O the rP e r s ons ( 18 U . S . C . § 1029( b) ( 2) ) ; T r a f f i c i n a nd U s e of 

# FI LED JAN 08 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

U nauthor i z e d A c c e s s D e vi c e s ( 18 U . S . C . § 1029( a ) ( 2) a nd ( b) ( 1) ) ; F r audul e nt T r a ns a c t i ons w i th A c c e s s D e vi c e s I s s ue d t o O the rP e r s ons ( 18 U . S . C . § 1029( a ) ( 5) a nd ( b) ( 1) ) ; A ggr a va t e d I de nt i tyT he f t( 18 U . S . C . § 1028A ( a ) ( 1) ) ; F a l s e S t a t e m e nt ( 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 0 0 1 ) ; a n d U n la w f u llyP r o c u r e m e n t o f

C itiz e n s h ip ( 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 4 2 5 ( a ) ) . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f i rm. I. A gg rava te d Id en ti ty T h ef t P opac ont e nds tha thi s 24- m onth s e nt e nc e e nha nc e m e nton c ount s 11 a nd 13 m u s t b e v a c a te d b e c au s e th e d r iv e r s ’ lic e n s e s a n d c r e d it c a r d s P o p au s e d f o rh is p r e d i c a t e c r i me s d o n o tq u a l i f ya s “ th e me a n s o f

a n o th e r ” u n d e r1 8 U . S. C. § 1 0 2 8 A ( a ) ( 1 ) . W e r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s s ta tu to ryin te rp r e ta tio n d e n o v o . A ri z. B d. f or Cha rterSch. v. U

. S. D ep’t of E du c. , 46 4 F . 3d 10 03 , 10 06 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). U nde r18 U . S . C . § 1028A ( a ) ( 1) , “ [ w ] hoe ve r , dur i ng a nd i n r e l a t i on t o a ny f e l onyvi ol a t i on e num e r a t e d i n s ubs e c t i on ( c ) , know i ngl ytr a ns f e r s , pos s e s s e s , or u s e s , w ith o u t la w f

u l au th o r ity , am e a n s o f id e n tif ic a tio n o f

a n o th e rp e r s o n s h a ll, in a ddi t i on t o the puni s hm e ntpr ovi de d f ors uc h f e l ony , be s e nt e nc e d t o at e rm of i m pri sonm entof 2 years . ” S ub se ct i on (c ) c ov er s P op a’ s und er l yi ng offe nses un der 18 U . S . C . § 1029. “ [ T ] he t e rm ‘ m e a ns of i de nt i f i c a t i on’ m e a ns a nyna m e or n u m b e rth a t m a yb e u s e d , a lo n e o rin c o n ju n c tio n w ith a n yo th e rin f o rm a tio n , to3

i de nt i f y as pe c i f

i c i ndi vi dua l , i nc l udi ng a ny. . . a c c e s s de vi c e ( a s de f i ne d i n s e c t i on 10 29 (e )) . . . . ” 18 U . S . C . § 1 02 8(d)(7)(D ). P opaa dm i t s tha tthe f

a l s i f i e d dr i ve r s ’ l i c e ns e s tha the us e d i nc l ude d the a c tua l na m e s of

s pe c i f i c , i de nt i f

i abl e i ndi vi dua l s , buta l l e ge s tha tbe c aus e a l l the othe ri nf orm a t i on on the l i c e ns e s w a s e i the rf i c t i t i ous ortha tof

P opahi m s e l f

, he di d n otuse the “ m eans of i dent i fi ca t i on ” of ano ther pers on . N i nth C i rc ui tl aw do es n o t s u p p o rt th is c o n te n tio n . “[ S ]o lo n g a s th e in f o rm a tio n ta k e n a s aw h o le i de nt i f i e s as pe c i f

i c i ndi vi dua l , ” the s t a tut oryde f i ni t i on of “ m e a ns of

i de nt i f i c a t i on o f a n o th e rp e r s o n ” is m e t. U ni ted Stat es v. B l i

xt , 54 8 F . 3d 88 2, 88 7-88 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( c o n c lu d in g th a t af o r g e d s ig n a tu r e c o n s titu te s am e a n s o f id e n tif ic a tio n ) ; se e al so U ni ted Stat es v. Melendrez , 389 F . 3d 829, 832- 34 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( i nt e rpr e t i ng a s ent enci ng gu i del i ne i m pl em ent i ng the Ident i ty T heftA ctand h ol di ng thatre al S oci al S ec uri ty num bers used al on e o r i n c onj unc t i on w i th othe ri nf orm a t i on const i tut e am eans of i dent i fi ca t i on because they c an be used t o u ni qu el y i dent i fy sp eci fi c p erso n s). P o p a w as fo u n d g u i l ty o f h av i n g u sed b o th fal si fi ed d ri v ers’ l i cen ses an d actu al , st o l en cred i tcard s. B ecau se b o th th e n am es o n th e d ri v ers’ l i c e ns e s a nd the c r e di tc a r ds us e d w e r e r e a l and uni que l yi de nt i f i e d the vi c t i m s of P o p a’ s i d en t i ty th eftcri m es, th e d i stri ctco u rtp ro p erl y co n cl u d ed th atth ese doc um e nt s w e r e the m e a ns of i de nt i f i c a t i on of

a nothe rpe r s on.4

P o p a fu rth er co n t en d s th atfo r th e sen t en ce en h an cem en tp ro v i si o n s t o ap p l y, h e m u s t h a v e u s e d o th e rd o c u m e n ts th a n th e o n e s f o rm in g th e b a s is o f

th e p r e d ic a te offe nses . T hi s argum ental so do es no tfi nd supp orti n the l aw . T he use of e i ther th e d r iv e r s ’ lic e n s e s o rth e c r e d it c a r d s w a s in its e lf s u f f ic ie n t to s u p p o rt a c o n v ic tio n u n d e rs e c tio n 1 0 2 8 A . See Melendrez , 389 F . 3d a t834 ( di s m i s s i ng the no t i on that“ a s i ng l e m eans of i dent i fi ca t i on i s notsuff i ci ent . ”) T he aggravat ed theftprov i si on s w er e thu s c orre ct l y app l i ed here. II . S am e Ju ry U se d for I m m i grati on C ou n ts an d for U n d er l y i n g C ri m es F orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l , P opac ont e nds tha ti tw a s pl a i n e rr orf orthe di stri ctcourtt o tryP op a’ s i m m i grat i on coun t s i n frontof the sa m e j ury thathad ju s t h e a r d th e c o n s p ir a c y , f r au d , a n d a g g r a v a te d id e n tif yth e f t c o u n ts . A di s tr i c tc ourtha s br oa d di s c r e t i on t o de t e rm i ne w he the rt o trydi f f e r e nt p h a s e s o f

atr ia l to d if

f e r e n t ju r ie s . U

ni ted Stat es v. M

atus-L ev a , 311 F . 3d 1214, 12 17 (9th C i r. 20 02 ). W hen a defendantfa i l s t o rai se an ar gu m enti n the di stri ct c o u rt, w e w ill n o t r e v e r s e th e c o u rt’s d e c is io n ab s e n t as h o w in g o f p la in e rr o r . U ni te d State s v . O lano , 5 0 7 U .S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 1 ( 1 9 9 3 ) . A t tr ia l, P o p af a ile d to r e q u e s t a s e ve r a nc e of

the i m m i gr a t i on c ount s or , i n the a l t e rna t i ve , the bi f ur c a t i on of evi dence agai nsthi m . H e now ar gu es thatthe j ury l i kel y had becom e pre j ud i ce d agai nsthi m and thu s c on vi ct ed hi m on the i m m i grat i on coun t s a s w el l . H ow ever ,5

th e im m ig r a tio n c h a r g e s w e r e , in la r g e p a rt, b a s e d o n P o p a ’s p r e d ic a te c r im e s . T hu s, even i f ase cond j ury had been em panel ed, i tw ou l d n ec es sari l y a l so have had to h e a re v id e n c e ab o u t P o p a ’s id e n tif yth e f t c r im e s . U n d e rth e s e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , it w a s n o t p la in e rr o rf

o rth e d is tr ic t c o u rt to e m p a n e l o n lyo n e ju ry . M atus-L ev a , 3 1 1 F .3 d a t 1 2 1 7 . II I. F act F i n d i n g b y D i st ri ct C ou rt In order t o p re se rve hi s r i gh t s i n con nect i on w i th p ossi bl e f uture habeas c orpus pr oc e e di ngs , P opaobj e c t s t o the di s tr i c tc ourtm a ki ng f a c tua l f i ndi ngs d u ri n g sen t en ci n g . W e fo l l o w th e b i n d i n g p reced en tsetfo rth b y A lm en da rezT orres v . U

ni ted Stat es , 5 2 3 U .S . 2 2 4 , 2 4 7 ( 1 9 9 8 ) , w h ic h c u rr e n tlyf o r e c lo s e s th is a r g u m e n t. IV . R eason ab l en es s of S en te n ce T he s ubs t a nt i ve r e a s onabl e ne s s of as e nt e nc e i s r e vi e w e d f ora n abus e of d is c r e tio n . U

n i ted S ta tes v. A u tery , 555 F . 3d 864, 871 ( 9th C i r . 2009) . P opa c o n te n d s th a t b e c au s e h e o n lyp la y e d am in o rr o le in th e c o n s p ir a c y , h is s e n te n c e is no tre as on abl e. B as ed on the se nt enci ng fa ct ors i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3, the di stri ct c o u rt r e d u c e d P o p a ’s o f f e n s e le v e l f

r o m 1 8 to 1 6 p r e c is e lyb e c au s e P o p ao n ly pl ay ed a m i no r r ol e i n the conspi ra cy . T he di stri ctcourtj ud ge further ordere d P op a’ s tw o 2 4-m on th sent ence s on cou nt s 11 and 13 t o run concurrent l y w i th eac h6

o th e r . O n th is r e c o r d , P o p a ’s s e n te n c e is r e a s o n ab le . U n ite d S ta te s v . Ca r ty , 520 F .3 d 9 8 4 , 9 9 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . W e w ill n o t d is tu rb it. V . R e v o c a t io n o f

C it ize n s h ip F in a lly , P o p aa r g u e s th a t th e o r d e rr e v o k in g h is U n ite d S ta te s c itiz e n s h ip s h o u ld b e r e v e r s e d b e c au s e th e r e w a s in s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to s u p p o rt h is conv i ct i on for i m m i grat i on fr aud. W hen, as here , a def endantdo es no tpres erve a c l a i m of s uf f i c i e nc yof

the e vi de nc e bym ovi ng f ora c qui tt a l a tthe c l os e of the e vi de nc e , thi s c ourt ’ s r e vi e w i s de f e r e nt i a l , r e qui r i ng r e ve r s a l onl yupon pl a i n e rr or o rto p r e v e n t m a n if

e s t in ju s tic e . U

ni te d State s v . Si ngh , 532 F . 3d 1053, 1056- 57 (9th C i r. 20 08 ). In conn ec t i on w i th a chal l enge t o the suff i ci encyof the evi dence, w e m u s t d e te rm in e w h e th e r , a f te rv ie w in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e p r o s e c u tio n , a n yr a tio n a l tr ie ro f f a c t c o u ld h a v e f

o u n d th e e s s e n tia l e le m e n ts o f th e c r im e b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t. I d. U n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 1 0 0 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) - ( 2 ) , ad e f e n d a n t c o m m its f

r au d b yk n o w in g ly a nd w i l f ul l yc onc e a l i ng orc ove r i ng up a nym a t e r i a l f a c torbym a ki ng a ny m a t e r i a l l y f

a l s e , f i c t i t i ous orf

r audul e nts t a t e m e nt . K now i ngl ypr oc ur i ng ci t i ze nshi p con traryt o l aw i s avi ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1 42 5. A ttri al , the j ury h e a r d e x te n s iv e te s tim o n yth a t P o p aw a s p a rt o f th e id e n tityth e f

t c o n s p ir a c yb o th before and atthe t i m e of hi s c i t i ze nshi p app l i ca t i on proces s, bu tthathe deni ed ever7

h a v in g c o n d u c te d a n yu n la w f u l a c tiv itie s w h e n s o a s k e d b ya n im m ig r a tio n o f f ic e r . T e s tim o n ya ls o s h o w e d th a t if P o p ah a d a c k n o w le d g e d h is w r o n g d o in g s , h e w o u ld notha ve be e n gr a nt e d c i t i z e ns hi p. O n thi s ba c kgr ound, ar a t i ona l j uryc oul d ha ve c onc l ude d tha tP opavi ol a t e d the above pr ovi s i ons . B e c aus e no pl a i n e rr oror m a n if e s t in ju s tic e h a s b e e n s h o w n h e r e , Si ngh , 5 3 2 F. 3 d a t1 0 5 7 , w e a f f i rm. AF F I RME D.