United States v. Latoya Morehead, 676 F. App'x 695

Latoya Morehead appealed after a jury convicted her of five counts of wire fraud, two counts of making false statements on tax returns, twenty-four counts of assisting others in making false tax-return statements, and three counts of aggravated identity theft.
At a pretrial conference the district judge offered to read the indictment to the jury and to send a copy to the jury room; Morehead’s counsel declined the reading and did not request the indictment be sent.
The government admitted a chart at trial listing each indictment count with factual bases and relevant exhibits; parties also submitted a jointly proposed verdict form detailing the factual bases for each count.
The government introduced evidence of additional, non‑charged instances of tax fraud in its proof at trial.
The district court used the Ninth Circuit’s model jury instruction for aggravated identity theft; Morehead challenged the instruction and a prosecutor’s remark in closing.
Morehead also challenged the mandatory sentencing requirements for aggravated identity theft as violating separation of powers.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to read or provide indictment to jury	Morehead contends district court erred by not reading indictment aloud or sending copy to jury	Government: counsel waived/request omitted; jury had charts/verdict form conveying counts	Waived/invited error; no plain error because jury was apprised of charged facts
Admission of non‑charged tax‑fraud instances	Morehead argues introduction of uncharged acts constructively amended indictment	Government: charged elements were submitted and jury could distinguish charged vs uncharged conduct	No constructive amendment; jury had means to distinguish charged conduct
Aggravated identity theft jury instruction	Morehead claims instruction was erroneous under recent law	Government: used Ninth Circuit model instruction; Osuna‑Alvarez does not render it wrong	No plain error; instruction consistent with law (unlawful use can convict even if ID obtained lawfully)
Mandatory minimum sentencing challenge	Morehead argues mandatory aggravated‑identity‑theft penalties violate separation of powers	Government: Congress may define punishments without sentencing discretion to courts	Rejected; mandatory sentencing provisions do not violate separation of powers

United States v. Myers, 804 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. 2015) (doctrine of invited error/waiver)
United States v. Ward, 747 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2014) (distinguishing charged conduct from uncharged conduct to prevent constructive amendment)
United States v. Osuna‑Alvarez, 788 F.3d 1183 (9th Cir. 2015) (explaining unlawful use of identification can support aggravated identity theft even if means were obtained lawfully)
United States v. Fuchs, 218 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 2000) (standard for prejudice from prosecutorial error)
Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453 (1991) (Congress may define criminal punishments without giving courts sentencing discretion)
United States v. Chaidez, 916 F.2d 563 (9th Cir. 1990) (upholding mandatory minimum sentencing against separation‑of‑powers challenge)