United States v. Robert Alexander
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16224
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Alexander, while on supervised release, stole mail along his delivery route, including a Snows’ check bearing their name and routing information.
- He used the Snows’ account data to forge a counterfeit check in the name “Robert C. Snow” with a false ID and the Snows’ true bank numbers.
- He used the counterfeit check and a fake ID to make a $158.06 Walmart purchase.
- A warrant had issued for his arrest for supervised release violations; probation searched his residence and found the counterfeit check.
- He was charged with aggravated identity theft and related offenses; pleaded guilty to counts 2–4 and stood trial on count 1, a bench trial for identity theft.
- The district court convicted on count 1 and sentenced him to 72 months’ imprisonment with supervised release and restitution of $158.06.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the victim’s name and banking numbers on the counterfeit check are a means of identification | Alexander argues they are not a means of identification | United States contends they are a means of identification under §1028(d)(7) | Yes; they are a means of identification under §1028(d)(7) |
| Whether §1028(d)(7)(D) incorporates §1029(e)(1)’s paper-instrument exclusion to bar the check | Alexander argues the paper-instrument exclusion eviscerates the means of identification | Government argues exclusion does not nullify the broad list in §1028(d)(7) | No; exclusion does not render §1028(d)(7) meaningless and the check may still be a means of identification |
| Whether applying §1028(d)(7) to check-forgery upholds the statute’s textual breadth without undermining federalism | Alexander contends it would upend state–federal balance | Government points to plain language and prior interpretations | Textual breadth supports federalization as Congress drafted a broad scope |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Williams, 659 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 2011) (plain meaning governs unless clearly contrary to legislative history)
- United States v. Keyser, 704 F.3d 631 (9th Cir. 2012) (de novo review of statute interpretation)
- United States v. Blixt, 548 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2008) (expansive meaning of ‘name’ in §1028A)
- United States v. Johnson, 680 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2012) (statutory interpretation in disparate sections)
- United States v. Romero-Martinez, 443 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2006) (discussion of whether an access device is required for identification)