Opinion ID: 6324427
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Both Cruz and Jorge assert the evidence at trial was insufficient to support their convictions for unlawfully possessing the means of identification of three people identified in their superseding indictment. Aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), requires proof “that the defendant: (1) knowingly transferred, possessed, or used; (2) the means of identification of another person; (3) without lawful authority; (4) during and in relation to a felony enumerated in § 1028A(c).” United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178, 1192 (11th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted). The government must prove the defendant knew the identity he was using belonged to a real person and can prove this via circumstantial evidence. United States v. Maitre, 898 F.3d 1151, 1 We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and accepting all reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict.” United States v. Mendez, 528 F.3d 811, 814 (11th Cir. 2008). “We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for a clear abuse of discretion.” United States v. Flanders, 752 F.3d 1317, 1334 (11th Cir. 2014). USCA11 Case: 20-13223 Date Filed: 03/17/2022 Page: 5 of 17