United States v. Bradshaw, 445 F. App'x 176

Bradshaw appeals his convictions for credit card fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2), Count 1) and two counts of aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), Counts 2–3), and his 72-month sentence.
The district court admitted evidence of Bradshaw's prior fraud convictions under Rule 404(b) and instructed the jury to consider them for intent and identity.
Bradshaw challenges the 404(b) evidence as insufficiently similar to establish a modus operandi for identity, and argues the additional trial evidence did not render the error harmless.
The government presented extensive direct evidence of Bradshaw's participation in the charged frauds, including a card opened in Victim 1’s name shipped to Bradshaw’s address, Bradshaw as a password for an online application, and other corroborating witness testimony.
Bradshaw also challenges the sufficiency of evidence on aggravated identity theft (Count 2–3), and separately argues about sentencing—partially consecutive terms under § 1028A guided by the Sentencing Guidelines commentary.
The panel affirms all convictions and the sentence as not reversible error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 404(b) evidence to prove identity was admissible	Bradshaw argues the prior offenses lacked distinctive identity	Bradshaw contends 404(b) identity use was improper	Harmless error; overwhelming guilt evidence supports conviction
Whether Bradshaw knew the identification used belonged to an actual person	Bradshaw claims insufficient knowledge of real identities	Govt showed knowledge through circumstantial evidence	Sufficient evidence; reasonable jurors could find knowledge
Whether district court plainly erred by not discussing 5G1.2 commentary on consecutive sentences	Bradshaw cites lack of explicit commentary discussion	Court considered nature, seriousness, and 3553(a) factors	Not plain error; district court did not fail to apply applicable guidance

United States v. Brown, 587 F.3d 1082 (11th Cir. 2009) (Rule 404(b) abuse of discretion; harmless error analysis)
United States v. Phaknikone, 605 F.3d 1099 (11th Cir. 2010) (identity evidence requires substantial similarity (modus operandi))
United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 2005) (harmless error when overwhelming evidence of guilt)
United States v. Gomez-Castro, 605 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2010) (knowledge and circumstances surrounding identity shown by evidence)
Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1886 (Supreme Court 2009) (knowledge requirement for use of another's identity in § 1028A)
United States v. Holmes, 595 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2010) (everyday experience supports identity verification)
United States v. Bonilla, 579 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review for sentencing arguments raised on appeal)