United States v. Christopher Spears
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20156
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Spears operated a cottage industry producing counterfeit documents (driver’s licenses, handgun permits, diplomas) for customers near Lake County, Indiana.
- Payne, a customer, bought a fake Indiana handgun permit, provided her identifying information, and paid $100.
- Spears created a fraudulent handgun permit bearing Payne’s name and birth date, delivered via an intermediary “Tony.”
- Payne later attempted to buy a firearm using the fake permit, violating § 922(a)(6).
- Spears was indicted on five counts; Counts 2–4 were challenged on appeal (aggravated identity theft, producing false IDs, possessing five or more false IDs).
- The district court denied defense motions for acquittal; Spears was convicted on Counts 1–5, with a mandatory consecutive sentence on Count 2 and concurrent sentences on the rest; the appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Spears transferred a means of identification under § 1028A(a)(1). | Government argued Spears transferred Payne’s identifying information via the fraudulent permit. | Spears argued transfer requires moving someone else’s information to a third party, not giving back the owner’s information on a document. | Yes; the transfer clause covers transferring another’s means of identification, even via a document bearing the owner’s information. |
| Whether the production of a false identification document satisfies § 1028(a)(1). | Government contends Exhibit 10 qualifies as a false identification document. | Spears contends most exhibits are not government-issued, so not false IDs; discounts interstate-commerce relevance. | Exhibit 10 suffices to sustain production conviction; the other exhibits fail under the statutory definition. |
| Whether Spears possessed five or more false identification documents under § 1028(a)(3). | Government argues sufficient quantity via multiple documents. | Spears argues the six documents don’t meet the statutory threshold or appearance requirements. | Reversed; insufficient to prove possession of five or more valid-looking false IDs at any one time. |
| Whether the production of a fake driver’s license affected interstate commerce. | Government asserts that fake IDs influence interstate travel and commerce. | Spears contends the nexus is tenuous or speculative. | Rational jury could find a de minimis/realistic probability of affecting interstate commerce. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (U.S. 2009) (explains the broad reach of § 1028A(a)(1) beyond traditional identity theft)
- Jaensch v. United States, 665 F.3d 83 (4th Cir. 2011) (false ID documents may appear government-issued even if not issued by the state)
- Castellanos v. United States, 165 F.3d 1129 (7th Cir. 1999) (distinguishes between ‘false identification document’ and ‘identification document’ definitions)
- Rentana v. United States, 641 F.3d 272 (8th Cir. 2011) (interprets the scope of 1028A(a)(1) beyond classic misappropriation)
- Mobley v. United States, 618 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2010) (supports broader interpretation of § 1028A(a)(1))