United States v. Wilson
709 F.3d 84
2d Cir.2013Background
- Wilson was convicted by a jury on charges from an identity theft scheme; the opinion addresses her conviction under 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(A).
- Wilson was assigned SSN ending 5541 in 1972 based on an accurate application; later changes did not change the number.
- In 1979 and 1990, Wilson’s SSA records were updated for name and birth information, but she continued to receive the same SSN; no new number was assigned.
- Count Five charged that Wilson provided to the marshal a SSN she obtained by falsely stating she was born in the United States; the government relied on § 408(a)(7)(A).
- The court held the government failed to prove the SSN was assigned on the basis of false information; the 1972 assignment was based on accurate information.
- Consequently, Count Five is reversed; other counts remain affirmed, and the case is remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SSN assignment was based on false information | Government argues the SSN was assigned due to false birthplace information. | Wilson contends the 1972 assignment was based on accurate information and not false; no basis to tie the SSN to false data. | Government failed to prove SSN was assigned on false information; Count Five reversed. |
| Whether use of an SSN during the marshal interview satisfies the statute | Government maintains elements include use of an SSN with deception intent; alleged use occurs in 2009 interview. | Wilson argues the key issue is assignment, but acknowledges elements may be met; however assignment was not proven. | Even assuming elements proven, lack of proven assignment defeats Count Five; remand for resentencing on remaining counts. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bahel, 662 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 2011) (statutory interpretation and essential elements reviewing de novo)
- United States v. Al Kassar, 660 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2011) (statutory interpretation; essential elements analysis)
- United States v. Reich, 479 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2007) (methodology for interpreting criminal statutes)
- Canada v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 2006) (identification of essential elements in criminal offenses)