United States v. John Doe
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21368
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant "John Doe" was convicted of two counts of aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A), unlawful production of an ID (18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(1)), and false attestation in immigration matters (18 U.S.C. § 1546(b)(3)) after a jury trial; sentence: 78 months.
- Victim V’s name, birth date, and Social Security number were used without authorization for ~27 years; V’s identifying documents were likely sold in 1987 and used to obtain replacement SSA documents that were repeatedly presented as genuine.
- From 2002 onward, DMV records show applications and renewed Nevada driver’s licenses listing V’s identity but bearing Doe’s photograph; Doe also submitted V’s Nevada license and Social Security card with an I-9 in 2013.
- The Government relied on circumstantial evidence—chiefly Doe’s repeated and successful use of V’s identity before government agencies—to prove the § 1028A knowledge element (that the identity belonged to a real person).
- At sentencing the Guidelines range was 18–24 months (Offense Level 14, CHC II), but the district court upwardly varied to 78 months based on prolonged, severe harm to V and crimes committed in V’s name.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for § 1028A knowledge element | Govt: Repeated, successful submission of V’s ID to government agencies permits inference Doe knew the identity belonged to a real person | Doe: No direct proof he knew V or that V’s documents belonged to a real person; circumstantial evidence insufficient | Affirmed: Circumstantial evidence (repeated, successful testing with government scrutiny) was sufficient to infer knowledge |
| Reasonableness of 78‑month sentence (upward variance) | Govt/District Ct: Long duration and severity of harm, offenses committed in victim’s name justified variance | Doe: Sentence substantively unreasonable and unsupported by credible evidence | Affirmed: District court did not abuse discretion; sentence was not substantively unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Flores‑Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (Sup. Ct.) (statutory knowledge requirement for § 1028A)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Sup. Ct.) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir.) (review standard for circumstantial evidence and Jackson analysis)
- United States v. Miranda‑Lopez, 532 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir.) (circumstantial proof of knowledge in identity‑theft prosecutions)
- United States v. Valerio, 676 F.3d 237 (1st Cir.) (repeated subjection of SSN to government scrutiny supports knowledge inference)
- United States v. Doe, 661 F.3d 550 (11th Cir.) (repeated, successful testing of identity is powerful circumstantial evidence of knowledge)
- United States v. Gomez‑Castro, 605 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir.) (successful testing of birth certificate/SSN to obtain government IDs supports knowledge)
- United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir.) (appellate review of substantive reasonableness of sentences)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Sup. Ct.) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for sentencing review)
- United States v. Ressam, 679 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir.) (deference to district court sentencing; relief only for clear error)