Source: http://digital.lib.uni.edu/cdm/ref/collection/post/id/853/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 00:02:08+00:00

Document:
identification he used belonged to another person.
520 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2008), petition for cert.
W. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law (2d ed.
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).
sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years.
1 The enumerated offenses are listed in 18 U.S.C.
(relating to nationality and citizenship).
Registration numbers in order to obtain employment.
using in fact belongs to another person.
relating to programs under the Act).
 So in original. Probably should be “records”.
had been issued to anyone of that name. Id. at 1, 5.
In fact, the Social Security number was invalid. Id.
count of Illegal Entry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325.
of Aggravated Identity Theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
card number was valid or not.
numbers were used on the cards bearing petitioner’s name.
his own name.4 Pet. App. 2a; U.S. C.A. Br. 1.
trial. U.S. C.A. Br. 1.
real people. U.S. C.A. Br. 5.
the Government that no such proof was required.
1028A enhancement. Id. at 2a-3a.
identification he used belongs to another person. Pet.
another person.’” Id. (citing United States v.
F.3d 213 (4th Cir. 2006)).
division over the mens rea requirement of 18 U.S.C.
Requirement Of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1).
belonged to another person.”); United States v.
at 1239 (citing Model Penal Code § 2.02(4) (1985)).
Villanueva-Sotelo, 515 F.3d at 1238.
stated that “if we harbored any doubt about this . . .
(U.S. July 15, 2008) (No. 08-5316); United States v.
and used belonged to another actual person”), cert.
denied, 128 S. Ct. 2903 (2008); United States v.
individual to have violated the statute”).
Montejo, 442 F.3d at 216.
the text. See Mendoza-Gonzalez, 520 F.3d at 916-17.
F.3d at 610 n.8; Montejo, 442 F.3d at 217.
makes a great deal of difference.
2008 WL 2780646, at * 10 (Lynch, C.J., concurring).
be resolved without this Court’s intervention.
decisions of the Fourth, Eighth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits); id.
Circuit noting decisions of the Fourth, Eleventh, and D.C.
of Social Security fraud, 18 U.S.C.
§ 1028A(c)(11), passport fraud, id.
§ 1028A(c)(7), theft of public property, id.
id. § 1028A(c)(2), and other crimes.
received for their predicate offense. See 18 U.S.C.
populous circuit in the country.
court and the sole question presented on appeal. Pet.
that they were issued to real people.” U.S. CA Br. 6.
any evidence to contradict that testimony at trial.
Using Belongs To Another Person.
of Section 1028A(a)(1) and the rule of lenity.
identification  of another person.” 28 U.S.C.
only, or even the most plausible, reading.
food stamps was not authorized by law. Id.
would accord with ordinary usage.
Criminal Law § 27 (1972)).
Hurtado, 508 F.3d at 309; Montejo, 442 F.3d at 215.
the federal statute criminalizing “knowingly . . .
or dispense, a controlled substance,” 21 U.S.C.
by any policy concern. Id. at 424-25, 430.
the provision’s verbs, criminal liability would attach.
knowledge requirement is textually ambiguous.
18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(2) (emphasis added).
adjoining subsection of the statute.
consistent manner, neither view is plausible.
provision is “Aggravated identity theft,” 18 U.S.C.
that distinguishes misappropriation from thievery.
within the ordinary meaning of those terms.
Penalty Enhancement Act, H.R. 1731, 108th Cong.
“address the growing problem of identity theft. . .
terms of imprisonment or probation.” H.R. Rep. No.
illicit employee access to confidential information.
turned out to have been assigned to another person.
See Villanueva-Sotelo, 515 F.3d at 1245.
on the person whose identity the defendant steals.
money or misusing their credit.
assigned yet, while others are not so lucky.
v. United States, 349 U.S. 81, 83 (1955).
Montejo, 442 F.3d at 217.
of certiorari should be granted.

References: § 1254
 § 1325
 v.

 § 1028
 v.

 § 2
 v.

 v.

§ 1028

§ 1028
 § 1028
 § 27
 § 1028

v.