United States v. Eduardo Castellanos-Loya, 4th Cir. (2013)
United States v. Eduardo Castellanos-Loya, 4th Cir. (2013)
No. 12-4293
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:
DIAZ,
Circuit
Decided:
Judges,
and
January 8, 2013
HAMILTON,
Senior
Michael S. Nachmanoff,
Pratt, Larry M. Dash,
Norfolk, Virginia, for
States Attorney, Andrew
States Attorney, Newport
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
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
2009).
reasonable
[S]ubstantial
finder
of
fact
evidence
could
is
accept
evidence
as
that
adequate
a
and
the
record
supports
conflicting
inferences,
we
must
(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
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,
cannot
agree.
The
Government
adequately
proved
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
who
concluding
never
that
the
actually
jury
existed,
could
we
have
properly
have
no
difficulty
found
that
the
Castellanos-Loyas
assertion
that
the
Government
high
probability
of
its
existence,
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.
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.
found
the
requisite
knowledge
on
the
facts
of
this
case.
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
United States v.
next
urges
that
the
district
court
date
of
birth
to
the
We
have
of
reviewed
whether
the
the
associated
record
district
and
court
with
the
conclude
properly
SSN,
that,
due
regardless
considered
the
factors
617
(holding
F.3d
286,
292
(4th
Cir.
2010)
that
evidentiary
Finally,
Castellanos-Loya
attacks
his
sentence,
enhancement
(USSG)
court
3C1.1
properly
factual
under
U.S.
(2011).
applied
findings
are
In
the
Sentencing
assessing
Guidelines,
reviewed
for
Guidelines
whether
the
clear
Manual
sentencing
district
error
and
courts
its
legal
where
he
willfully
obstructed
or
impeded,
or
instant
offense
of
conviction,
and
(2)
the
obstructive
As
the
applies to perjury.
As
application
notes
is
conviction
and
inapplicable
representation
the
enhancement
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).
could
charge;
have
thus,
he
obstructed
6
argues,
only
his
his
false
aggravated
trial
identity
only
to
the
former
offense,
he
the
district
Castellanos-Loyas
position
underappreciates
308
F.3d
425,
429
(4th
Cir.
the
United States v.
2002).
In
fact,
the
conviction
[to
support
application
of
the
3C1.1
instant
offense.
omitted).
Id.
Moreover,
at
the
428
(internal
enhancement
quotation
applies
where
marks
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
dependent
1028A
charge,
we
conclude
that
the
district
United States v.
Id. at
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
his
testimony
in
closely
related
case)
(internal
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
8