United States v. Iannelli, 700 F.Supp.3d 1

Iannelli was hired in 2018 as a bookkeeper/office manager and had authority to use her employer’s (subsidiary’s) parent-corporation signature stamp and access its Bank of America account.
The indictment alleges a two-part theft scheme: (1) ~43 inflated invoices totaling ~$30,000 by miscomputing hours/amounts and adjusting the accounting system; (2) issuance of unauthorized duplicate checks (about $150,000 total) by writing herself an extra $2,320 check each pay period and recording them as vendor payments.
Count V charges one such unauthorized check as bank fraud; Count VIII charges aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) based on use of the parent-corporation signature stamp on that extra check.
Iannelli moved to dismiss Count VIII arguing (a) under United States v. Dubin, the signature-stamp use was ancillary to routine bookkeeping/overbilling and not “at the crux” of the fraud, and (b) § 1028A(a)(1) is unconstitutionally vague as applied.
The government argued the stamp was essential to the fraud because it impersonated the parent corporation and misrepresented who authorized payment.
The court denied the motion: it found the stamp use went to “who” authorized the withdrawal (thus at the crux of the bank fraud) and rejected the vagueness challenge as-applied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether use of employer’s signature stamp is a “use” of another’s identification “during and in relation to” a predicate offense under § 1028A after United States v. Dubin	Stamp use was at the crux: it misrepresented that the parent authorized the payment and made the check valid against the parent	Stamp use was ancillary/garden‑variety overbilling; she was generally authorized to use the stamp, so identity was not misrepresented	Denied dismissal: stamp use was at the crux because it deceived who authorized the check (unlike facts in Dubin)
Whether § 1028A(a)(1) is unconstitutionally vague as applied	The statute clearly proscribes using another’s identifier to procure funds without authority; the indictment gives clear notice	Statute is vague and could criminalize routine overbilling or ordinary bookkeeping errors	Denied: as‑applied not vague; a professional bookkeeper had clear notice that using the parent’s stamp to procure unauthorized funds was unlawful

United States v. Dubin, 599 U.S. 110 (2023) (interpreting “use … during and in relation to” in § 1028A and requiring the identifier be at the crux of the fraud)
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) (void‑for‑vagueness challenges are considered as‑applied when conduct clearly proscribed)
Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (1982) (standard for vagueness review)
United States v. Bohai Trading Co., Inc., 45 F.3d 577 (1st Cir. 1995) (indictment allegations are presumed true on a motion to dismiss)
Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States, 342 U.S. 337 (1952) (on standards for testing sufficiency of indictments)