Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Eduardo Castellanos-Loya, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    24 views8 pages
    1) The defendant, Eduardo Castellanos-Loya, appealed his convictions for false representation of U.S. citizenship and aggravated identity theft. 2) The Fourth Circuit affirmed both convictions, finding that the government presented substantial evidence that the social security number Castellanos-Loya possessed belonged to a real person and that he knew this. 3) The court also rejected Castellanos-Loya's other arguments that certain evidence was improperly admitted and that he received an improper sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-01-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-4293

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) The defendant, Eduardo Castellanos-Loya, appealed his convictions for false representation of U.S. citizenship and aggravated identity theft. 2) The Fourth Circuit affirmed both convictions, finding that the government presented substantial evidence that the social security number Castellanos-Loya possessed belonged to a real person and that he knew this. 3) The court also rejected Castellanos-Loya's other arguments that certain evidence was improperly admitted and that he received an improper sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    24 views8 pages

    United States v. Eduardo Castellanos-Loya, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) The defendant, Eduardo Castellanos-Loya, appealed his convictions for false representation of U.S. citizenship and aggravated identity theft. 2) The Fourth Circuit affirmed both convictions, finding that the government presented substantial evidence that the social security number Castellanos-Loya possessed belonged to a real person and that he knew this. 3) The court also rejected Castellanos-Loya's other arguments that certain evidence was improperly admitted and that he received an improper sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 8

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-4293

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    EDUARDO CASTELLANOS-LOYA, a/k/a Heriberto Rivera-Malave,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News.
    Arenda Wright Allen,
    District Judge. (4:11-cr-00068-AWA-FBS)

    Submitted:

    December 20, 2012

    Before WYNN and


    Circuit Judge.

    DIAZ,

    Circuit

    Decided:

    Judges,

    and

    January 8, 2013

    HAMILTON,

    Senior

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Michael S. Nachmanoff,
    Pratt, Larry M. Dash,
    Norfolk, Virginia, for
    States Attorney, Andrew
    States Attorney, Newport

    Federal Public Defender, Frances H.


    Assistant Federal Public Defenders,
    Appellant.
    Neil H. MacBride, United
    L. Creighton, Special Assistant United
    News, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Eduardo Castellanos-Loya appeals his convictions and
    twenty-five month sentence for false representation as a United
    States citizen, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 911 (2006), and for
    aggravated

    identity

    theft,

    in

    1028A(a)(1) and (c) (2006).


    Castellanos-Loya
    produced
    identity

    insufficient
    theft

    violation

    of

    18

    U.S.C.

    We affirm.

    first

    contends

    evidence

    conviction.

    to

    When

    that

    the

    support

    his

    defendant

    Government
    aggravated

    challenges

    the

    sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we view the evidence and


    all reasonable inferences in favor of the government and will
    uphold the jurys verdict if it is supported by substantial
    evidence.
    Cir.

    United States v. Cameron, 573 F.3d 179, 183 (4th

    2009).

    reasonable

    [S]ubstantial
    finder

    of

    fact

    evidence
    could

    is

    accept

    evidence
    as

    that

    adequate

    a
    and

    sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendants guilt beyond


    a reasonable doubt.
    Where

    the

    record

    Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

    supports

    conflicting

    inferences,

    we

    must

    presume that the factfinder resolved any such conflicts in favor


    of the prosecution.

    McDaniel v. Brown, 130 S. Ct. 665, 673

    (2010).
    To win a conviction for aggravated identity theft, the
    government must show that the defendant has committed one of
    certain

    enumerated

    predicate

    offenses
    2

    and,

    during

    and

    in

    relation

    to

    that

    crime,

    knowingly

    transfers,

    possesses,

    or

    uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of


    another person.
    States v.

    18 U.S.C. 1028A(a)(1) (2006); see United

    Castillo-Pena,

    674

    F.3d

    318,

    323

    (4th

    Cir.

    2012);

    United States v. Abdelshafi, 592 F.3d 602, 607 (4th Cir. 2010).
    Castellanos-Loya does not dispute that he committed a
    qualifying predicate offense by falsely representing himself as
    an American citizen to the agent who detained him, violating
    911, see Castillo-Pena, 674 F.3d at 323, nor does he dispute
    that

    social

    identification

    security
    for

    number

    purposes

    (SSN)

    of

    is

    1028A(a)(1).

    means

    of

    Instead,

    Castellanos-Loya argues that the Government failed to prove (1)


    that the SSN belonged to a real person, (2) that CastellanosLoya knew that it did, and (3) that his possession of the SSN
    was in relation to his lie that he was an American citizen.
    We

    cannot

    agree.

    The

    Government

    adequately

    proved

    that the SSN in question belonged to a real person simply by


    demonstrating that the number was valid i.e., that the Social
    Security Administrations records reflected that the number had
    been issued to an individual.

    See United States v. Mitchell,

    518 F.3d 230, 234 (4th Cir. 2008); United States v. Melendrez,
    389 F.3d 829, 834 (9th Cir. 2004).
    argues

    that

    the

    Governments

    Although Castellanos-Loya

    evidence

    in

    this

    case

    was

    insufficient because it failed to rule out the possibility that


    3

    the SSN could have been fraudulently obtained in the name of a


    person

    who

    concluding

    never
    that

    the

    actually
    jury

    existed,

    could

    we

    have

    properly

    have

    no

    difficulty

    found

    that

    the

    Governments evidence sufficed to prove this element of 1028A


    beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Cameron, 573 F.3d at 183.

    Castellanos-Loyas

    assertion

    that

    the

    Government

    failed to prove that he knew that the SSN belonged to a real


    person, see Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646, 647
    (2009), suffers from a similar ailment: it demands of defendants
    a degree of certainty that is foreign to long-accepted notions
    pertaining to a mens rea of knowledge.

    See, e.g., Model Penal

    Code 2.02(7) (Thompson Reuters, Westlaw through 2011) (When


    knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of
    an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware
    of

    high

    probability

    of

    its

    existence,

    believes that it does not exist.).

    unless

    he

    actually

    Castellanos-Loya admitted

    that the person who sold him the SSN effectively told him that
    the SSN belonged to a real person.

    But he now asserts that,

    despite his subjective belief that the SSN was authentic, he did
    not actually know that the SSN belonged to a real person because
    he

    did

    not

    verify

    that

    the

    seller

    was

    not

    lying

    to

    him.

    Although we are mindful of the difficulty in many circumstances


    of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant has the
    necessary knowledge, we have no doubt that a jury could have
    4

    found

    the

    requisite

    knowledge

    on

    Flores-Figueroa, 556 U.S. at 655.

    the

    facts

    of

    this

    case.

    See, e.g., id. at 656; United

    States v. Valerio, 676 F.3d 237, 244-46 (1st Cir. 2012); United
    States

    v.

    Clark,

    668

    F.3d

    568,

    574

    (8th

    Cir.

    2012);

    United

    States v. Doe, 661 F.3d 550, 561-65 (11th Cir. 2011), cert.
    denied, 132 S. Ct. 1648 (2012); United States v. GomezCastro,
    605 F.3d 1245, 1249 (11th Cir. 2010).
    As
    Government

    for
    failed

    Castellanos-Loyas
    to

    prove

    that

    he

    assertion
    possessed

    that
    the

    the

    SSN

    in

    relation to his false representation offense, he has waived any


    such argument on appeal by failing to raise it in his Fed. R.
    Crim. P. 29 motion before the district court.

    United States v.

    Chong Lam, 677 F.3d 190, 200 (4th Cir. 2012).


    Castellanos-Loya

    next

    urges

    that

    the

    district

    court

    abused its discretion in declining to prohibit testimony about


    the

    date

    of

    birth

    to

    the

    Governments late disclosure of the pertinent information.

    We

    have

    of

    reviewed

    whether

    the

    the

    associated

    record

    district

    and

    court

    with

    the

    conclude

    properly

    SSN,

    that,

    due

    regardless

    considered

    the

    factors

    enumerated in United States v. Hastings, 126 F.3d 310, 317 (4th


    Cir. 1997), any error was harmless.

    United States v. Johnson,

    617

    (holding

    F.3d

    286,

    292

    (4th

    Cir.

    2010)

    rulings are subject to harmless error renew).

    that

    evidentiary

    Finally,

    Castellanos-Loya

    attacks

    his

    sentence,

    contending that he was improperly assigned an obstruction of


    justice

    enhancement

    (USSG)
    court

    3C1.1

    properly

    factual

    under

    U.S.

    (2011).

    applied

    findings

    are

    In
    the

    Sentencing

    assessing

    Guidelines,

    reviewed

    for

    conclusions are reviewed de novo.

    Guidelines

    whether
    the

    clear

    Manual

    sentencing

    district

    error

    and

    courts

    its

    legal

    United States v. Osborne, 514

    F.3d 377, 387 (4th Cir. 2008).


    A defendant merits a two-level obstruction of justice
    enhancement

    where

    he

    willfully

    obstructed

    or

    impeded,

    or

    attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice


    with respect to the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of
    the

    instant

    offense

    of

    conviction,

    and

    (2)

    the

    obstructive

    conduct related to (A) the defendants offense of conviction and


    any relevant conduct; or (B) a closely related offense.
    3C1.1.

    As

    the

    applies to perjury.
    As

    application

    notes

    is

    conviction

    and

    inapplicable

    representation

    the

    enhancement

    USSG 3C1.1, cmt. n.4(B).

    Castellanos-Loya

    enhancement

    specify,

    USSG

    to

    therefore

    conviction

    observes,

    the

    his

    aggravated

    applies

    only

    under

    911.

    See

    obstruction

    identity

    theft

    to

    his

    false

    USSG

    2B1.6(a).

    But at trial, Castellanos-Loya admitted his guilt on the false


    representation
    testimony

    could

    charge;
    have

    thus,

    he

    obstructed
    6

    argues,

    only

    his

    his

    false

    aggravated

    trial

    identity

    theft conviction, not his 911 conviction.


    related

    only

    to

    the

    former

    offense,

    he

    Because his perjury


    claims,

    the

    district

    court erred in applying the enhancement to the Guidelines range


    pertaining to the latter.
    But

    Castellanos-Loyas

    position

    underappreciates

    broad reading that must be given to 3C1.1.


    Jones,

    308

    F.3d

    425,

    429

    (4th

    Cir.

    the

    United States v.

    2002).

    In

    fact,

    the

    defendants perjurious statements need not be about the offense


    of

    conviction

    [to

    support

    application

    of

    the

    3C1.1

    enhancement]; it is enough if the perjurious statements were


    given during the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of
    the

    instant

    offense.

    omitted).

    Id.

    Moreover,

    at

    the

    428

    (internal

    enhancement

    quotation

    applies

    where

    marks
    the

    obstructive conduct related to an offense closely related to


    the

    defendants

    offense

    of

    conviction.

    USSG

    3C1.1.

    See

    United States v. Mollner, 643 F.3d 713, 715-19 (10th Cir. 2011)
    (collecting cases and describing how the term closely related
    was chosen to increase the breadth of 3C1.1s scope).

    Given

    that Castellanos-Loya perjured himself during the trial on his


    false representation charge and that the statements related to
    the

    dependent

    1028A

    charge,

    we

    conclude

    that

    the

    district

    court did not err in assigning him an enhancement under 3C1.1.


    See Mollner, 643 F.3d at 716-17; Jones, 308 F.3d at 429; Doe,
    661 F.3d at 566.
    7

    Castellanos-Loyas complaint that the district court


    failed to specifically find that his false testimony concerned
    a material matter fails for the same reason.
    Perez, 661 F.3d 189, 192 (4th Cir. 2011).

    United States v.

    The district courts

    findings clearly establishe[d] that Castellanos-Loyas false


    trial testimony went to the heart of his 1028A charge.

    Id. at

    193 (emphasis omitted); United States v. Quinn, 359 F.3d 666,


    681 (4th Cir. 2004).

    And because his false testimony on the

    1028A charge was sufficiently related to his 911 offense,


    the district court made all the findings of materiality that
    were necessary to support the application of the enhancement.
    See

    Mollner,

    643

    F.3d

    at

    Killingsworth,

    413

    F.3d

    760,

    enhancement

    applies

    to

    717;
    765

    perjury

    that

    cf.

    United

    (8th
    was

    Cir.

    States
    2005)

    immaterial

    to

    v.
    (the
    the

    defendants own sentence and conviction because it was made


    during

    his

    testimony

    in

    closely

    related

    case)

    (internal

    quotation marks, alteration, and emphasis omitted).


    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
    court.
    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and


    contentions
    this

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.

    AFFIRMED
    8

    You might also like