United States v. Emelys Gonzalez
666 F. App'x 847
11th Cir.2016Background
- Emelys Gonzalez was indicted on five counts, including bank fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1); she was convicted and sentenced to 25 months.
- At trial, the government introduced a May 4, 2014 check listing the name and signature “Amy M. Elannan” and a Hialeah, Florida address; the check paid $4,000 to an "Evelyn Gonzalez" and was deposited into Gonzalez’s Bank of America account the same day.
- Amy Headley testified she formerly used the name Amy Elannan and had lived at the address on the check decades earlier, that the signature on the check was not hers, and that she never authorized anyone to use her name or signature for the check.
- Gonzalez moved for a Rule 29 judgment of acquittal on the aggravated-identity-theft count, arguing the name was too generic to identify a specific person and relying on United States v. Mitchell.
- The district court denied the Rule 29 motion; on appeal the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence de novo and affirmed Gonzalez’s conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the government proved the name used was a “means of identification” that belonged to a specific person under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A | Gonzalez: the name/signature “Amy Elannan” alone (and related information) was not sufficiently unique to identify a specific person under Mitchell | Government: the check showed a first and last name, signature, and a prior address that matched Headley’s former identification information; Headley’s testimony tied the identifiers to her specifically | Court: Affirmed — taken together (name + former address + testimony about signature), the identifiers were sufficiently unique to identify a specific person and support conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Holmes, 814 F.3d 1246 (11th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for denial of Rule 29 motion)
- United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (elements of aggravated identity theft under § 1028A)
- United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 230 (4th Cir. 2008) (a bare name may be insufficiently unique to identify a specific person)