754 F.3d 1118
9th Cir.2014Background
- From 2007, Sardariani and co-conspirators obtained multiple private loans by pledging properties he did not own, ultimately stealing $5,450,000.
- Fraudulent documents included a grant deed and a reconveyance bearing forged signatures and forged notary seals; these were recorded to deceive lenders and county recorders.
- Sardariani pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, wire fraud, and unlawful monetary transactions; sentenced to 120 months.
- At sentencing the district court found Sardariani used notary seals and commission numbers he had fabricated, and applied a 2-level Sentencing Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(11)(A)(ii) for use of an "authentication feature."
- Sardariani appealed the enhancement, arguing "authentication feature" is limited to features issued on government identification documents and thus did not cover forged notary seals on deeds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether forged notary seals constitute an "authentication feature" under 18 U.S.C. § 1028(d)(1) and justify § 2B1.1(b)(11) enhancement | Government: notary seals are authentication features because they are used to detect falsified documents and assert state authority | Sardariani: notary seals were not issued by a government for identification documents; deeds are not identification documents, so § 1028 does not apply | Affirmed: notary seals are authentication features; statute covers features on "means of identification" and document-making implements; enhancement proper |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rivera, 527 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 2008) (district court interpretation of Sentencing Guidelines reviewed de novo)
- United States v. Blixt, 548 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2008) (a forged signature qualifies as a "means of identification")
- Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, 447 U.S. 102 (1980) (statutory text controls absent clear contrary legislative intent)
- Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249 (1992) (courts presume a statute means what it says)