United States v. Doe
661 F.3d 550
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Doe was convicted of willfully making a false passport statement and aggravated identity theft (Counts 1–3) based on using Laurn Daniel Lettsome's identity.
- Evidence showed Doe used Lettsome's name, birth date, SSN, and other identifiers to obtain Florida and U.S. Virgin Islands licenses and a Bank Atlantic debit card, and to apply for a passport.
- Lettsome testified that the identifiers on Doe's passport application were not his and that he never authorized their use.
- The government relied on circumstantial evidence—Doe repeatedly tested Lettsome's identity through multiple verifications and genuine documents to support knowledge that the identity belonged to a real person.
- A pretrial services interview produced false information from Doe, which was used in a pretrial services report to pursue a bond decision, leading to an obstruction-of-justice enhancement.
- The district court sentenced Doe to Count 1 six months, Counts 2–3 twenty-four months each (concurrent with each other but consecutive to Count 1), and the district court affirmed the enhancement on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of knowledge element for § 1028A(a)(1) | Doe contends knowledge that the ID belonged to a real person was not proven. | Doe argues lack of direct knowledge evidence and no proof of verification. | Sufficient circumstantial evidence supported knowledge of real person. |
| Obstruction-of-justice enhancement application | Obstruction enhancement justified by false statements to pretrial officer. | Statements were immaterial to investigation; not an obstruction. | Enhancement properly applied; materiality satisfied by impact on bond/proceedings. |
| Miranda/Fifth Amendment challenge to pretrial statement use | Statements to USPO violated Fifth Amendment because not Mirandized. | Routine booking/pretrial data collection falls outside interrogation. | No fifth-amendment error; routine, non-interrogation exception applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (Supreme Court, 2009) (knowledge element requires defendant know means belonged to real person)
- Holmes, 595 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2010) (circumstantial testing of identity supports knowledge)
- Gomez-Castro, 605 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2010) (repeatedly testing victim's identity supports knowledge)
- Campa, 529 F.3d 980 (11th Cir. 2008) (relevance of whether obstruction occurred during investigation/prosecution)