## Facts

- Ignacio Carlos Flores-Figueroa used counterfeit Social Security and permanent resident cards to obtain and keep employment.
- The documents bore his real name but included identification numbers assigned to other people.
- Flores-Figueroa asserted he did not know the numbers belonged to real individuals.
- The government charged him with misuse of immigration documents, illegal entry, and aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1).
- He pleaded guilty to the immigration-related offenses but contested the aggravated identity theft charge based on lack of knowledge that the identifiers were another person’s.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) requires the government to prove the defendant knew the “means of identification” used belonged to “another person.”

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that § 1028A(a)(1) requires proof that the defendant knew the means of identification belonged to another actual person.
- The Court read “knowingly” to modify not only “transfers, possesses, or uses,” but also the phrase “a means of identification of another person.”
- The Court rejected arguments that a neighboring subsection or enforcement concerns justified a different reading.

## Legal Principles

- As a matter of ordinary grammar, an adverb such as “knowingly” preceding a list of offense elements is ordinarily read to apply to the later elements that follow, including the object of the verb.
- Absent a clear contrary indication, federal criminal statutes are generally construed to apply an expressed mens rea requirement to each material element of the offense.
- Potential redundancy or surplusage created by related statutory provisions does not, by itself, overcome the most natural reading of the statutory text.
- Policy and enforcement arguments cannot override the ordinary meaning of statutory language when that meaning is clear.

## Conclusion

Aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) requires proof that the defendant knew the identification used belonged to another real person; knowingly using identification that in fact matches someone else is insufficient without that knowledge.


Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (2009)