Opinion ID: 867191
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Unauthorized Use of a Means of Identification

Text: Lastly, Jones challenges the district court’s application of a two-level 17 Case: 12-10599 Document: 00512238188 Page: 18 Date Filed: 05/10/2013 No. 12-10599 enhancement under § 2B1.1(b)(11)(C)(i) for “the unauthorized transfer or use of any means of identification unlawfully to produce or obtain any other means of identification.” She again contends that “she had no involvement with any such conduct and that any such means of identification were produced or obtained” by other conspirators. Jones further asserts that there was no evidence to show that she provided the photograph of herself to be used to create the fraudulent identification document. Finally, she maintains that even if she had provided the photograph herself, the enhancement would be inapplicable because “the act would not have been ‘unauthorized’” as required by § 2B1.1(b)(11)(C)(i). We reject each of Jones’s arguments. First, contrary to her assertions, she was directly involved in the production of the fraudulent identification card. Her photograph was on the fake card she used on the day of her arrest, and even if she was not directly involved in the card’s creation, by providing her photograph to other conspirators, at minimum, it was reasonably foreseeable to her that the fake card would be created. Although she now argues that there was no evidence that she provided her own photograph, she did not contest this issue in the district court. Moreover, “in determining whether an enhancement applies, a district court is permitted to draw reasonable inferences from the facts.” Caldwell, 448 F.3d at 290. Given that Jones was the one who approached the Moores about participating in this scheme, and that her photograph was on the identification card she used the day of her arrest, the court was entitled to infer that Jones was involved in the production of the fraudulent identification card. As for Jones’s contention that this enhancement was inapplicable because the photograph used to create the false identification card was her own, and, by extension, its use therefore was not “unauthorized,” our decision in United States v. Rhymer, 299 F. App’x 378 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (unpublished), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1638 (2009), is instructive. There, the defendant (“Rhymer”) pled guilty to possession of stolen mail, but challenged the district court’s 18 Case: 12-10599 Document: 00512238188 Page: 19 Date Filed: 05/10/2013 No. 12-10599 application of the two-level enhancement at issue here. Id. at 379. On appeal, we explained that it was undisputed that Rhymer had “used another woman’s personal information to obtain a false identification card that bore Rhymer’s photograph and a name slightly different from the name of the woman whose information was stolen.” Id. It also was undisputed that “Rhymer intended to negotiate a third party’s check using that false identification card.” Id. Nevertheless, Rhymer asserted that the enhancement was inapplicable because “she obtained the woman’s personal information legally, and the Guideline requires that the victim’s identifying information be obtained through unlawful means.” Id. We rejected Rhymer’s argument, however, concluding that because “Rhymer’s use of the woman’s personal information to obtain an identification card bearing a false name was not authorized, the enhancement applies on its face.” Id. at 379–80. Similarly here, Jones and her co-conspirators used an individual’s personal information to produce a fraudulent identification card bearing Jones’s photograph. Jones’s offense therefore involved the unauthorized use of one means of identification (i.e., the information abstracted from the stolen mail and illegally purchased personal documents), unlawfully to produce another means of identification (i.e., the fraudulent identification card). Accordingly, the district court did not err in applying a two-level enhancement pursuant to § 2B1.1(b)(11)(C)(i).