Carter v. United States

2 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Sheppard

    22-cr-20290-BLOOM (S.D. Fla. Jun. 3, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    Facing this Court are differing interpretations of the Aggravated Identity Theft statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, and Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit case law interpreting it. See Dubin v. United States, 599 U.S. 110, 114 (2023); United States v. Gladden, 78 F.4th 1232, 1245 (11th Cir. 2023); Carter v. United States, No. 22-12744, 2024 WL 20847, at *9 (11th Cir. Jan. 2, 2024).

  2. United States v. Boykins

    CRIMINAL 3:23-cr-00024 (E.D. Va. Jul. 17, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    Other courts have reached conclusions similar to Gladden's by concluding that a defendant violated § 1028A(a)(1) where the defendant misappropriated a person's identity to make it falsely appear as if that person was receiving a specific service or benefit when, in fact, they were not. See, e.g, Carter v. United States, No. 22-12744, 2024 WL 20847, at *9 (11th Cir. Jan. 2, 2024) (per curiam) (defendant's conduct fell “‘squarely within the classic variety of identity theft left untouched by Dubin1” where defendant's “fraud was in misrepresenting ‘who received the services'” because he “used ... students' information to make it appear that they were enrolled at [a certain school when they in fact received schooling elsewhere], which had the effect of increasing state funding for [the school district]”, and where defendant “oversaw the creation of fraudulent enrollment forms and report cards to carry out this scheme”) (quoting Gladden, 78 F.4th at 1245-46); United States v. Fullerton, No. 1:21-CR-216-RP, 2023 WL 6150782, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 20,2023) (defendant liable for aggravated identity theft post Dubin where defendant used the names and social security numbers of six people to fraudulently increase his Payroll Protection Program (“