Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-10_ifjn.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2022 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

DUBIN v. UNITED STATES 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

No. 22–10.  Argued February 27, 2023—Decided June 8, 2023 

Petitioner  David  Dubin  was  convicted  of  healthcare  fraud  under  18 
U. S. C.  §1347  after  he  overbilled  Medicaid  for  psychological  testing
performed  by  the  company  he  helped  manage.  The  question  is 
whether,  in  defrauding  Medicaid,  he  also  committed  “[a]ggravated 
identity theft” under §1028A(a)(1).  Section 1028A(a)(1) applies when
a defendant, “during and in relation to any [predicate offense, such as
healthcare  fraud],  knowingly  transfers,  possesses,  or  uses,  without 
lawful  authority,  a  means  of  identification  of  another  person.”    The 
Government argued below that §1028A(a)(1) was automatically satis-
fied because Dubin’s fraudulent Medicaid billing included the patient’s
Medicaid reimbursement number—a “means of identification.”  Bound 
by Fifth Circuit precedent, the District Court allowed Dubin’s convic-
tion for aggravated identity theft to stand, even though, in the District
Court’s view, the crux of the case was fraudulent billing, not identity 
theft.  The Fifth Circuit sitting en banc affirmed in a fractured deci-
sion, with five concurring judges acknowledging that under the Gov-
ernment’s reading of §1028A(a)(1), “the elements of [the] offense are 
not captured or even fairly described by the words ‘identity theft.’ ”  27 
F. 4th 1021, 1024 (opinion of Richman, C. J.). 

Held: Under §1028A(a)(1), a defendant “uses” another person’s means of 
identification “in relation to” a predicate offense when the use is at the 
crux of what makes the conduct criminal.  Pp. 4–21.

(a) This case turns on the scope of two of §1028A(a)(1)’s elements:
Dubin  was  convicted  under  §1028A(a)(1)  for  “us[ing]”  a  patient’s 
means of identification “in relation to” healthcare fraud.  On the Gov-
ernment’s view, a defendant “uses” a means of identification “in rela-
tion  to”  a  predicate  offense  if  the  defendant  employs  that  means  of 
identification to facilitate or further the predicate offense in some way.