Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (2009), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, holding that the law enhancing the sentence for identity theft requires proof that an individual knew that the identity card or number he had used belonged to another, actual person. Simply using a Social ...
Facts. Figueroa-Flores (D) was a Mexican who was convicted of the predicate crimes of entering the U.S. without inspection and without proper immigration documents, as well as of aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. Section 1028( a)(1). This section imposes a mandatory consecutive sentence of 2 years if convicted of ...
A summary and case brief of Flores-Figueroa v. United States, including the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, key terms, and concurrences and dissents.
Disclosure: Howe & Russell represented the petitioner. Issue: Whether an individual who used a false means of identification without knowing it belonged to another person can be convicted of â€œaggravated identity theftâ€ under 18 U.S.C. 1028A(a)(1). Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice ...
Feb 25, 2009 ... Ignacio Flores-Figueroa was convicted on two counts of aggravated identity theft in a federal district court and sentenced to 75 months imprisonment. On appeal, he argued that his conviction was in error because the government did not prove he knew the identification he possessed belonged to another ...
May 4, 2009 ... Case opinion for US Supreme Court FLORES-FIGUEROA v. UNITED STATES. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw.
Nov 18, 2008 ... Case opinion for US 2nd Circuit UNITED STATES v. FIGUEROA. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw.
SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008. FLORES-FIGUEROA V. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. FLORES-FIGUEROA v. UNITED STATES. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit. No. 08–108. Argued February 25, 2009—Decided May 4, 2009. A federal statute ...
Syllabus. NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v.