## Facts

- A federal grand jury in the District of Rhode Island indicted Vladimir Cabrera on two counts, including possession of “document-making implements” with intent to produce false identification documents, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(5).
- The government presented evidence that Cabrera and Joseph Medeiros produced counterfeit identification documents, including state driver’s licenses, state employee IDs, birth certificates, Social Security cards, and resident alien cards.
- Cabrera used a computer, scanner, printer, and commercial software to scan genuine documents, store digitized images, remove or alter identifying information and photographs, and print counterfeit versions on photographic paper.
- Cabrera maintained computer files containing scanned images of official documents with identifying information removed, used as digital “templates” for creating forgeries.
- Medeiros added new identifying information, trimmed the documents, and laminated them; some additional equipment was kept in a jointly owned suitcase.
- Secret Service agents executed a search warrant at Cabrera’s apartment and seized computer equipment, a trimming/measuring board, image-editing software, digitized templates, and counterfeit documents in various stages of completion.
- After trial, a jury convicted Cabrera on the § 1028(a)(5) count and acquitted him on the other count; the district court denied his motion for judgment of acquittal.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Cabrera possessed “document-making implements” under 18 U.S.C. § 1028(d)(3), i.e., implements “specially designed or primarily used” for making false identification documents.
2. Whether the district court violated the Sixth Amendment or abused its discretion by limiting cross-examination of a government witness about the general lawful uses of computers and related equipment.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find Cabrera’s system (hardware, software, templates, and related tools) qualified as a “document-making implement” because it was “specially designed” as configured and used to produce counterfeit IDs, or “primarily used” by Cabrera for that purpose.
- The court held the district court acted within its discretion in limiting cross-examination about general legitimate uses of computers because that line of questioning was not material to whether Cabrera’s equipment met the statutory definition as applied to his conduct.

## Legal Principles

- For 18 U.S.C. § 1028(d)(3), whether an item is “specially designed or primarily used” as a document-making implement may be determined based on the defendant’s configuration and actual use, not the general public’s typical use of similar equipment.
- Ordinary computer hardware and off-the-shelf software can qualify as “document-making implements” when combined with defendant-created templates and tools and used to produce false identification documents.
- Evidence showing repeated counterfeiting use and little or no legitimate use can support a jury finding that the equipment was “primarily used” for making false identification documents.
- A trial court may limit cross-examination on relevance grounds without violating confrontation rights when the excluded inquiry concerns general capabilities of common items rather than facts tied to the charged statutory elements.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld Cabrera’s § 1028(a)(5) conviction, ruling that a computer-based counterfeiting setup—though composed of generally lawful tools—can satisfy the statutory definition of “document-making implement” when configured and used by the defendant to create false identification documents, and that restricting cross-examination on generic computer uses was not reversible error.


United States v. Cabrera, 208 F.3d 309 (1st Cir. 2000)