Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Thalisha DAVIS, also known as Thalisha Smith, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-01
Citations: 324 F. App'x 395
Docket Number: No. 08-30965
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Thalisha DAVIS, also known as Thalisha Smith, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 324
Pages: 395–395

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Thalisha DAVIS, also known as Thalisha Smith, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-30965
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 1, 2009.
Alan A. Stevens, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Middle District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Rebecca L. Hudsmith, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Thalisha Davis pleaded guilty to two counts of making false claims and one count of theft of government property. She appeals the imposition of a two-level enhancement to her base offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C)(i). Davis argues that § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C)(i) is inapplicable because, in providing social security numbers assigned to others in making applications for disaster relief benefits with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, she did not use one means of identification to produce another means of identification. The commentary to the Sentencing Guidelines indicates that a bank loan account number qualifies as another means of identification that can be obtained unlawfully pursuant to § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C)(i). In light of the similarity between that example and the instant application of the guideline, we hold that the district court did not plainly err. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 392 (5th Cir.2007), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 128 S.Ct. 2959, 171 L.Ed.2d 892 (2008); see also § 2B1.1, cmt. n. 9(C)(ii)(I).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.