P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10255 Su m m ar y Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee

v. EF RE N M AR TI N EZ D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 07- C R

- 203- 1
B ef ore D AV IS, G A R Z A , an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * E f ren M art i n ez app eal s f ol l ow i n g h i s gui l t y pl ea conv i ct i on s f o rc o ns pir acy t o possess , produ ce, an d tr an sfer fal se i den t i f i cat i on docu m en t s an d to possess docu m e n t-m a k in gim p lem e n ts (C o u n t 1) ; un l aw f u lt ran sf

er of f al se i den t if

i cat i on do c um e nt s ( Count2 ) ; unl awf ulpo s s e s s i o n a nd a i di ng anda be t t i ng unl awf ul possessi on of

fal se i den t i f

i cat i on docum en t s w i t h i n t en tt o use an d tr an sfer unl awf ul l y ( Count4 ) ; unl awf ulpo s s e s s i o n a nd a i di ng anda bet t i ng unl awf ul United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April21, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10255

2 possessi on of

docum en t
- m ak i n g i m pl em en t s t o produ ce fal se i den t i f i cat i on d o cu m e n ts (C o u n t 5 ); a n da g g ra v a te dide n tityth e ft (C o u n t 6 ). M art i n ez argues that th e di st ri ctcou rt e rred by ap pl yi n g t h e ni n e- l evel enhancem ent und er U
. S. S. G
. § 2L2. 1(b) ( 2) ( C ) on t he gr ound t hatC ount s 1, 2, 4,
a n d5 in v o lv e d 1 0 0 o r m o r e d o c u m e n ts
. B e c a u s e M a r tin e z d id n o t ob je c t o n th is b a s is in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, th is is s u e is re v ie w e dfo rp la in e r r o ro n ly
. S ee Un i t ed St at es v. B ak er , 5 3 8 F .3 d3 2 4 , 3 3 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), cer t . den i ed , 129 S. C t
. 962 ( 200 9)
. A tM art i n ez’ s sen t en ci n g, a sp eci ala gen tof Im m i grati on s and C u st om s E n f orcem en tt est i f

i ed t h at M art i n ez’ s ap art m en tcon t ai n ed, a m on g ot h er i t em s u sed t o cr eate fal se i den t i f i cat i on docum en t s, over 100 sh eet s of st ock pa per si m u l ati n g green cards an d soci alsec u ri t y cards. Th e di st ri ctcourtdi d n ot
com m i tpl ai n erro r i n app l yi n g t h e ni n e- l evelenh an cem en tun der § 2 L 2 .1 (b )(2 )(C ). Se eUni t e d St at e s v . Salazar , 70 F
. 3 d 3 5 1, 351

- 52 (5t h C i r. 1 9 9 5 ).M ar t i nez al so ar gues t hatt he di st r i c tcour terr ed i n f i ndi ng t hata fac t ual bas i s exi st ed t o s upporth i s gui l t y pl ea as t o aggr avat ed i dent i t y t hef tunder 18 U
. S. C. § 1 02 8A. M ar t i ne z c o nt e nds t hathe n ever a dm i t t e d k no w i ng t hatt he
m ean s of

i den t ifi ca tion h e w as usi n g bel on ged t o an ot h er person. M art i n ez ar gue s t hats uc h kno w l e dg e i s an e l e m e nto f § 1 02 8A. Bec aus e t hi s a r gum e nt is ra is e dfo rth e fir s t t i m e o n a p p e a l, p la in e r r o rre v ie w a p p lie s . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Palm er , 4 5 6 F .3 d4 8 4 , 4 8 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). Se c t i on 1 028Ai m po s e s ac o ns e c ut ive t w o - ye ars e nt e nc e o n a nyo ne w ho du ri n g pa rt i cul ar en u m erat ed of fen ses “ kn ow i n gl y t ran sfers, possesses , or u ses, w ith o u t la w f

u l a u th o r ity , am e a n s o f id e n tific a tio n o f a n o th e rp e r s o n .” § 1 02 8A( a) ( 1)
. M ar t i ne z ar gue s t hatt he w o r d “kno w i ngly” m o di f i e s no to nl y t he ph rase “t ran sfers, possess es, or u ses” bu tal so t h e ph ra se “a m e a n s of i d en ti fi ca ti on of a n oth er p erso n , ” su ch tha t t h e G o v e r n m en t w a s req u i red to p rov e th a t a d efen d a n t kn ew tha t t h e m ea n s of i d en ti fi ca tio n b e lo n ge dtoN o. 08- 10255

3 ano t he r pe r s o n. M ar t i ne z al t e r nat ive l y ar gue s t hat§ 1 02 8A( a) ( 1) i s a m bi guo us a n dth a t its h o u ldb e in te r p r e te din h is fa v o rp u r s u a n t t o th e ru le o f le n ity
. W e ha ve n ot con sider ed th i s i ssu e. T h e F i rst, N i n th , a n d D .C . C i rcu i ts hav e he l d t hat t he G o ve r nm e nt m us t pr o ve unde r § 10 28A t hat t h e defen da nt
ac t ual l y knew t hatt he m e ans o f i de nt i f i c at i o n b e l o nge d t o a no t he rpe r s o n. Un i t ed Stat es v. G o d in , 5 3 4 F .3 d5 1 , 6 1 (1 s t C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); Uni t e d S t at e s v. Mira n d a-Lop ez , 53 2 F
. 3 d10 3 4 , 1 0 4 0 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); Uni t e d St at e s v . Vi l lanue v aS o telo , 5 1 5 F .3 d1 2 3 4 , 1 2 4 6 (D .C . C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), pe t i t i o n f o rc e r t . f i le d ( N ov. 7, 2008) ( N o . 0 8- 62 2)
. T h e E i ght h, El e ve nt h, a nd Fo ur t h Ci r c ui t s ha ve r e ac he d t he
o p p o s ite co n c lu s io n . Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mend oza- G on zalez , 52 0 F
. 3 d91 2 , 91 5 ( 8 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), pe t i t i o n f

o rc e r t . f

i le d (J u ly1 5 , 2 0 0 8 ) (N o . 0 8 -5 3 1 6 ); Uni t e d S t at e s v. H ur t ado , 5 0 8 F .3 d 6 0 3 , 6 0 9 , 6 1 0 & n .8 (1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ), cer t . den i ed , 12 8 S
. C t. 2 9 0 3 (2 0 0 8 ); Un ite dS ta te s v . Mo n te jo , 4 42 F. 3d 21 3, 21 6- 17 ( 4t h Ci r . 20 06 )
. The Supr e m e Cour tha s gr ant e d c e r t i o r ar i o n t hi s i s s ue i n Flores - Figu eroa v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 2 9 S . C t. 4 5 7 (2 0 0 8 )
. “A n e r r o ris co n s id e r e dp la in , o ro b v io u s , o n lyif th e e r ror is cl ea r u n d er ex i sti n g law
. ” Uni t e d St at e s v . Sal i nas , 4 8 0 F. 3 d7 50, 75 6 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 7)
. Bec aus e t h e law is n o tc ur r e nt l y s e t t l e d, a ny e r r o rb y t he d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s n o t c le a ro ro b v io u s . S ee id
. at759. AF F I RMED.