Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 15-1848
Appellee,
v.
Defendant, Appellant.
Before
I. Background
A. Factual Background
-2-
during the early 1990s, where he befriended Steve France. Steve
license using the name of George France and a birth date in 1966.
Nolte maintained this identity for nearly two decades. On May 15,
from Arizona. The United States issued the passport on May 16,
-3-
Shortly afterwards, on May 30, 1997, Nolte -- under the
the United States embassy in Costa Rica, stating that his passport
number that differed by one number -- but that also ended in 7622
and was obtained by using the George France Arizona license and by
had never received one. He listed his birth year as 1966, and
identified himself using the May 30, 1997 passport and a birth
19, 2007, Nolte filed for a renewal of the May 30, 1997 George
he had accidentally put his April 30, 2007 passport through the
-4-
washer and dryer, which had damaged it. He completed an
manager because the Social Security number used -- the one ending
called Nolte (as George France) and inquired why his Social
that his mother had given her sons the same Social Security number,
earlier in life, and that he had applied for a new number after
-5-
Passport Agency to inquire about the status of the replacement
passport. While there, two agents advised him of his rights and
application, he told the agents that his name was George France;
passed away; his Social Security number was the one ending in 8253;
provided the agents with the same explanation about his use of
the same Social Security numbers, and that he had used that number
B. Procedural Background
evidence, and the testimony of two witnesses who knew Nolte from
-6-
March 6, 2015, the jury returned a guilty verdict on all three
counts.
and at the June 29, 2015 sentencing hearing. The district court
court ruled that Nolte did "use" a passport when applying for the
12 months for Counts I and III, and 24 months for Count II. His
-7-
sentence also included two years of supervised release and a $3,000
II. Discussion
document."
de novo. United States v. Souza, 749 F.3d 74, 85 (1st Cir. 2014)
(citing United States v. Ihenacho, 716 F.3d 266, 276 (1st Cir.
-8-
both to determine the meaning the Sentencing Commission intended
2 states that:
-9-
of conviction, including any such enhancement that
would apply based on conduct for which the defendant
is accountable under 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct).
"Means of identification" has the meaning given that
term in 18 U.S.C. 1028(d)(7).
18 U.S.C. 1542.
-10-
whether the four-level enhancement of U.S.S.G. 2L2.2(b)(3)(A)
guideline. See United States v. Brown, 500 F.3d 48, 59 (1st Cir.
18 U.S.C. 1028(d)(7).4
as:
-11-
subdivision of a State, a sponsoring entity of an
event designated as a special event of national
significance, a foreign government, political
subdivision of a foreign government, an international
governmental or an international quasi-governmental
organization which, when completed with information
concerning a particular individual, is of a type
intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of
identification of individuals.
Id. 1028(d)(3).
Nolte cites United States v. Zheng, 762 F.3d 605, 610-11 (7th Cir.
-12-
holding that "[b]ecause a United States passport is not a 'means
2 does not apply (citing United States v. Melendrez, 389 F.3d 829,
-13-
This distinction does not appear to be unintended or
into the country with just a passport number, but having the
proper.'" United States v. Stella, 591 F.3d 23, 30 n.9 (1st Cir.
-14-
2009) (quoting United States v. Lilly, 13 F.3d 15, 19 (1st Cir.
in this case.8
6 In fact, the default rule is that the same conduct may determine
the base offense level and also trigger the cumulative application
of enhancements and adjustments unless a specific guideline
instructs otherwise. See U.S.S.G. 1B1.1 cmt. n.4.
-15-
"person" in the statutory phrase "means of identification of
2007), and he does not argue any exception to the rule of stare
issue.
to persons both living and dead. Id. at 22.9 As a panel, "we are
9 Other circuits have also concluded that 1028A covers the use
of the identity of both living and deceased persons. See United
States v. Zuniga-Arteaga, 681 F.3d 1220, 1225 (11th Cir. 2012);
United States v. LaFaive, 618 F.3d 613, 616-17 (7th Cir. 2010);
United States v. Maciel-Alcala, 612 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir.
2010); United States v. Kowal, 527 F.3d 741, 746-47 (8th Cir 2008).
-16-
precedent requires that we reject Nolte's challenge and affirm his
III. Conclusion
affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
-17-