United States v. Croft, 87 F.4th 644

Bradley Lane Croft owned Universal K-9 and sought VA/G.I. Bill funding by obtaining state certification from the Texas Veterans Commission (TVC).
The TVC application (March 2016) listed four instructors (Keeling, Bragg, Stanley, Underwood) and included certificates of their qualifications; TVC testimony said instructor rosters/qualifications were necessary for approval.
Three named instructors testified they never consented to be listed or did not actually teach; the fourth was deceased before the application date.
Croft was convicted after a bench trial of wire fraud, money laundering, false tax returns, and four counts of aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A; the Fifth Circuit initially affirmed.
The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Dubin changed the § 1028A "during and in relation to" test (requiring the use of a means of identification to be "at the crux of the criminality"), and vacated this Court’s judgment in Croft for reconsideration in light of Dubin.
On remand, the Fifth Circuit applied Dubin and affirmed Croft’s four § 1028A convictions (holding the use of the four men’s names/IDs was central to the fraudulent TVC application), upheld denial of Croft’s Brady/new-trial motion, and denied as moot his release-pending-appeal request.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (United States)	Defendant's Argument (Croft)	Held
Whether Croft’s use of others’ means of identification was "during and in relation to" wire fraud under § 1028A after Dubin	The TVC application would not have been approved absent the named instructors and their IDs/qualifications; the names/IDs were central to the fraud	The names were ancillary; no one impersonated the named individuals; the fraud was about qualifications/how services were provided, not "who"	Affirmed § 1028A convictions: use of the four men’s IDs was at the crux of the wire-fraud scheme under Dubin
Whether the district court erred in denying Croft’s motion for a new trial based on alleged Brady material	Government complied with disclosure obligations; no suppressed Brady material warranting a new trial	Government withheld newly discovered/exculpatory evidence meriting a new trial	Denial of the new-trial motion was affirmed; no Brady violation found sufficient to order a new trial
Whether Croft should be released pending appeal	Government opposed release; appeals would be adjudicated	Croft argued he was likely to prevail on appeal and sought release	Motion for release pending appeal denied as moot after appeals were finally adjudicated

Dubin v. United States, 599 U.S. 110 (2023) (Supreme Court: §1028A requires that use of another’s means of identification be “at the crux of the criminality” to qualify as aggravated identity theft)
United States v. Dubin, 27 F.4th 1021 (5th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (prior Fifth Circuit interpretation of §1028A later vacated by the Supreme Court)
United States v. Gladden, 78 F.4th 1232 (11th Cir. 2023) (applies Dubin and describes requirement of a genuine nexus between ID use and predicate crime)
United States v. Cosentino, 869 F.2d 301 (7th Cir. 1989) (evidentiary sufficiency standard for criminal convictions)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)