USA v. Alan Armenta
Date Filed: 04/12/2010
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-50536 S u m m a r y Calendar April 12, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk
U N I T E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in tiff-A p p e lle e v. A L A N MORALES ARMENTA, also known as Yonathan David Montana M o r a le s , also known as Jose Israel Robledo, also known as Yonhatan Montana M o r a le s , D e fe n d a n t-A p p e lla n t
A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Texas U S D C No. 3:08-CR-1810-1
B e fo r e KING, STEWART and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* F o llo w in g a jury trial, Alan Morales Armenta was convicted of one count o f attempted illegal reentry, one count of having made a false claim of United S t a t e s citizenship, and three counts of aggravated identity theft. Morales
A r m e n t a now appeals his conviction and sentence on one of the aggravated id e n t it y theft convictions, namely, Count Five.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Document: 00511076976 Page: 2 No. 09-50536
Date Filed: 04/12/2010
T o convict Morales Armenta of aggravated identity theft, the Government w a s required to prove that he "(1) knowingly [transferred, possessed, or] used ( 2 ) the means of identification of another person (3) without lawful authority (4 ) during and in relation to" certain felony violations, including attempted ille g a l reentry and false claims of citizenship. United States v. Stephens, 571 F .3d 401, 404-05 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); s e e 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), (c)(2), (10). The term "means of identification" is d e fin e d as "any name or number that may be used . . . to identify a specific in d iv id u a l, including any . . . name [or] social security number." 18 U.S.C. § 1028(d)(7). Morales Armenta argues that the Government did not present s u ffic ie n t evidence regarding the first of these elements, i.e., that he knowingly p o s s e s s e d the Social Security card at issue. V ie w in g the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational t r ie r of fact could have determined that the Government established all the e le m e n ts of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Ollison, 5 5 5 F.3d 152, 158 (5th Cir. 2009). Trial testimony established that the Social S e c u r ity card at issue was seized from Morales Armenta on the date of his a r r e s t . The record also shows that a letter was written to the Douglas County ( N e b r a s k a ) Health Department Vital Statistics requesting a copy of the birth c e r tific a t e of Jose Israel Robledo and that the attachments to that letter included a photocopy of a Social Security card in the name of Jose I. Robledo and a p h o t o g r a p h of Morales Armenta. Trial testimony established that the attached S o c ia l Security card was that of the identity theft victim (Robledo) and further t h a t it bore the same name and Social Security number as the Social Security c a r d seized from Morales Armenta. This evidence, viewed in the light most fa v o r a b le to the verdict, was sufficient to show that Morales Armenta knowingly p o s s e s se d the name and Social Security number on the Social Security card at is s u e . See Ollison, 555 F.3d at 158. A F F IR M E D . 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?