United States v. Christopher Spears
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18649
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Christopher Spears manufactured and sold a counterfeit handgun permit to Tirsah Payne, who used it while attempting to buy a gun; the dealer refused to sell and was not deceived.
- Investigation revealed Spears sold other fake credentials (e.g., driver’s licenses); he was convicted on five felonies including aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. §1028A and sentenced to concurrent terms plus a mandatory consecutive 2-year term under §1028A.
- Spears appealed; a Seventh Circuit panel affirmed two convictions and reversed a third; rehearing en banc was granted and the panel judgment was reinstated except as to the §1028A conviction.
- Key statutory questions: whether a physical counterfeit permit qualifies as a “means of identification,” whether the item was “transferred…to another person,” and whether “another person” means someone other than the defendant or someone whose identifying information was used without consent.
- The court held that physical documents (e.g., fake permit) can be a “means of identification,” but construed “another person” in §1028A(a)(1) to mean a person who did not consent to the use of the means of identification; Spears’s §1028A conviction could not stand under that construction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a counterfeit permit is a "means of identification" under §1028A | (Gov't) documents and physical IDs qualify as means of identification | (Spears) only intangible data (names, SSNs) are means of identification, not the physical permit | Court: physical documents that identify their owner (passports, licenses, permit cards) are "means of identification" |
| Whether Spears "transferred" a means of identification to "another person" when Payne received a card bearing her own data | (Gov't) Spears transferred the counterfeit card to Payne | (Spears) no transfer of another’s identification occurred because Payne used her own name/birthdate | Court: the counterfeit card was transferred to Payne (transfer element satisfied), but that alone is insufficient without "another person" meaning a nonconsenting victim |
| Meaning of "another person" in §1028A(a)(1) — does it mean any person other than defendant or only a nonconsenting victim | (Gov't) "another person" means any person other than the defendant (broad reading) | (Spears) "another person" must mean someone whose identifying information was used without consent; caption and context suggest identity theft, not all identity fraud | Court: "another person" means a person who did not consent to the use of the means of identification; ambiguity resolved by statute caption, context, and rule of lenity in favor of narrower reading |
Key Cases Cited
- Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (use of caption and context to construe §1028A and discussion of "means of identification")
- United States v. Sash, 396 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 2005) (counterfeit police badge is a "means of identification")
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (criminal statutes must clearly define forbidden conduct; rule of lenity applied where ambiguous)
- Florida Dep't of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc., 554 U.S. 33 (captions may help resolve statutory ambiguities)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (captions and context in statutory interpretation)
- United States v. LaFaive, 618 F.3d 613 (7th Cir. 2010) (unauthorized use of a deceased person's identifying information can violate §1028A)
- United States v. Zuniga-Arteaga, 681 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2012) (stated "another person" means anyone other than the defendant, but issue not fully briefed)