United States v. Lewis, 443 F. App'x 493

Lewis, a bookkeeper for LCRDA, embezzled $647,542.83 by forging checks payable to herself.
She endorsed the checks using the LCRDA chairman's signature stamp without Barron's knowledge or consent.
From 2001 to 2010, she embezzled funds by creating and cashing forged checks.
After pleading guilty to bank fraud and forged security counts, she entered a conditional plea to aggravated identity theft.
Before sentencing, Lewis filed a bankruptcy petition containing false statements and undisclosed prior bankruptcy/assets.
The district court denied a 3E1.1 acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, imposing 78 months plus a 24-month mandatory consecutive term for identity theft.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether forging a signature on a stolen check qualifies as means of identification	Lewis contends no identification means due to lack of access device.	Lewis asserts absence of an access device ends analysis under §1028(d)(7).	Yes; signature identifies the person, so constitutes a means of identification.
Whether the district court erred in denying § 3E1.1 reduction for acceptance of responsibility	Lewis argues guilty plea and conduct support responsibility reduction.	Government or district court could consider post-plea false bankruptcy filings against acceptance.	District court did not clearly err; post-plea false statements negate acceptance.

United States v. Blixt, 548 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2008) (forging another's signature constitutes use of a name as means of identification)
United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012 (11th Cir. 2005) (great deference to district court on acceptance of responsibility)
United States v. Pace, 17 F.3d 341 (11th Cir. 1994) (subsequent conduct considered in § 3E1.1 analysis)