894 F.3d 60
1st Cir.2018Background
- Carlos Rafael Acosta-Joaquin, a Dominican national who entered the U.S. illegally, adopted the identity of Kelvin Valle-Alicea and repeatedly used Valle's social security number on various documents.
- In Feb. 2016, agents executed a search warrant at Acosta’s apartment; agents found a child’s birth certificate listing Acosta as father and Acosta admitted his true identity.
- After receiving Miranda warnings and waiving rights, Acosta admitted he had purchased Valle’s birth certificate and social security card and used them to evade detection.
- A four-count indictment included social-security fraud under 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B); a jury convicted Acosta on the social-security fraud count and acquitted on three others.
- The conviction was for signing a Maine Judicial Branch Payment Notice Order on Sept. 22, 2015, while listing Valle’s social security number as if it were his own.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether government proved elements of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B) (false representation of SSN assigned to him) | Govt: Acosta signed the Payment Notice Order representing the SSN was his, knew it was not his, and intended to deceive; evidence supports conviction. | Acosta: He represented the number as Valle’s SSN (true), not as his own, so he did not falsely represent it as assigned to him. | Affirmed—jury could infer false representation and intent; statute reasonably read to cover Acosta’s conduct. |
| Whether defendant preserved the statutory-construction argument for appeal | Govt: Defendant raised only specific sufficiency points and thus waived broader statutory-construction argument; review should be for plain or clear injustice. | Acosta: Preserved challenge; argues literal reading precludes conviction. | Court assumed preservation but rejected argument on merits: statutory text and purpose cover Acosta’s lie; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wyatt, 561 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Doe, 878 F.2d 1546 (1st Cir. 1989) (prior reversal under same statute based on indictment and intent issues)
- Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125 (1998) (statutory interpretation and plain-meaning considerations)
- McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987) (statutory reading and limits on reasonable alternative constructions)
- United States v. Gordon, 875 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2017) (discussion of § 408(a)(7)(B) and statutory purpose)
- United States v. Foley, 783 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2015) (preservation and scope of sufficiency objections)
- United States v. Morel, 885 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2018) (standards for appellate review when preservation is disputed)