## Facts

- A defendant prosecuted under the pseudonym “John Doe” used another individual’s (“V’s”) name, date of birth, and Social Security number.
- V was born in 1963 and had a Social Security number issued in the late 1970s; by the late 1980s, V’s birth certificate and Social Security number had been sold and disseminated to an unknown person.
- Doe repeatedly applied for and renewed a Nevada driver’s license using V’s identifying information.
- Doe used the fraudulently obtained driver’s license and V’s Social Security number to complete a federal Form I‑9 Employment Eligibility Verification for employment.
- Doe’s prolonged use of V’s identity caused V concrete harm, including driver’s-license problems, misdirected tax refunds, and wage garnishment for child support.
- After V complained, law enforcement investigated, leading to Doe’s arrest and federal prosecution.
- A jury convicted Doe of aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A (and related conduct), and the district court imposed a 78‑month sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, that Doe knew the identifying information he used belonged to a real person.
2. Whether the 78‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Doe knew the identifiers belonged to a real person.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a 78‑month sentence and deemed the sentence substantively reasonable.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, the government must prove the defendant knew the “means of identification” used belonged to “another person,” not a fictitious identity.
- The knowledge element may be proved by circumstantial evidence; direct proof of the defendant’s awareness of the victim’s existence is not required.
- A jury may infer knowledge from a defendant’s repeated, successful submission of the same identifiers to government entities (and similar institutions) to obtain or maintain official documentation.
- Substantive reasonableness of a sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion; a sentence is affirmed if the district court reasonably applied the § 3553(a) factors without relying on clearly erroneous facts.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld aggravated identity theft convictions where the defendant repeatedly and successfully used another person’s identifiers to obtain official documents, finding that pattern sufficient circumstantial evidence of knowledge, and it affirmed a 78‑month sentence as within the district court’s discretion under § 3553(a).


United States v. Doe, 842 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2016)