United States v. Ryan Miller
883 F.3d 998
| 7th Cir. | 2018Background
- From July 2007 to December 2009, Ryan Miller obtained and possessed identifying information (names, addresses, birth dates, SSNs) for over 200 individuals and used that information to open credit-card accounts and withdraw cash.
- From ~Oct 2009–Feb 2010, Miller submitted over 600 fraudulent Texas unemployment claims using others' identities; debit cards were mailed to mailboxes Miller controlled and he withdrew funds.
- A 12-count indictment charged conspiracy, mail fraud, bank fraud, identity theft, and aggravated identity theft; the indictment was later amended, some counts dismissed, and Miller pleaded guilty to Count Two (mail fraud) and Count Seven (aggravated identity theft) under a conditional plea reserving certain appellate rights.
- The Presentence Report (PSR) set criminal history category VII, adding two points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d) because Miller was serving concurrent imprisonment in 2008 during the charged scheme; Miller did not object at sentencing.
- The district court ordered restitution payments during imprisonment to be made through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program (IFRP); neither side disputes that ordering IFRP participation was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Miller's Argument | Government's/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency and specificity of indictment (identification of victims) | Indictment must identify a specific "means of identification" for a specific person; failure to do so denies notice | Indictment tracked statute, gave timeframe and means, and pretrial disclosures supplied victim names—sufficient notice | Affirmed: indictment sufficient; failure to name each victim not fatal; not duplicitous where items comprised a single continuing scheme |
| Duplicity of counts aggregating many means of identification | Aggregating >200 identifiers in one count is duplicitous/multiple offenses | Possession of multiple identifiers in a single notebook and single scheme constitutes one unit of prosecution | Affirmed: single §1028(a)(7) and §1028A(a)(1) conviction for the notebook/scheme; rule of lenity resolves ambiguities in favor of single offense |
| Two criminal-history points under U.S.S.G. §4A1.1(d) for committing offense while under criminal-justice sentence | Points plain error because record lacks evidence he committed part of the offense while imprisoned | Plea agreement timeframe includes period of incarceration; Miller maintained constructive possession and control (notebook, cards, mailboxes) while in prison | Affirmed: no plain error; points properly applied because conduct spanned incarceration period |
| Mandating participation in IFRP | Mandatory IFRP participation is improper | Government agrees mandatory order was improper | Modified: participation must be voluntary; sentence modified accordingly (no remand needed) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stringer, 730 F.3d 120 (2d Cir.) (indictment referencing elements/timeframe and cross‑referencing other counts can supply sufficient detail for identity‑theft counts)
- Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81 (1955) (rule of lenity applied where statutory wording creates ambiguity about unit of prosecution)
- United States v. Cureton, 739 F.3d 1032 (7th Cir.) (interpretation of unit of prosecution and use of rule of lenity in similar contexts)
- United States v. Boyd, 608 F.3d 331 (7th Cir.) (ordering IFRP participation is improper; remedy is modification to make participation voluntary)