United States v. John Manuel Melendrez

389 F.3d 829 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Manuel MELENDREZ, Defendant-Appellant. No. 03-30221. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 4, 2004. Filed November 9, 2004. Craig E. Weinerman, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Eugene, OR, for the defendant-appellant. Sean B. Hoar, Assistant United States Attorney, Eugene, OR, for the plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon; Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-02-60133-1-ALA. Before: HUG, McKEOWN and FISHER, Circuit Judges. FISHER, Circuit Judge: 1 John Manuel Melendrez used six stolen Social Security numbers to manufacture bogus identification documents on his computer, including Social Security cards and Armed Forces Report of Separation Forms ("DD Forms 214"). The Social Security cards and DD Forms 214 were a mix of the real and fictitious: Melendrez made up a fake name to go with each of the real Social Security numbers he used to produce those identification documents. 2 At issue is whether the district court correctly applied to Melendrez's base offense level a six-level enhancement intended to target…

John Manuel Melendrez used six stolen Social Security numbers to manufacture bogus identification documents on his computer, including Social Security cards and Armed Forces Report of Separation Forms (“DD Forms 214”). The Social Security cards and DD Forms 214 were a mix of the real and fictitious: Melendrez made up a fake name to go with each of the real Social Security numbers he used to produce those identification documents.

At issue is whether the district court correctly applied to Melendrez’s base offense level a six-level enhancement intended to target “identity theft.” See U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL (“U.S.S.G.”) § 2B1.1(b)(9)(C) (2002). 1 This enhancement, which admittedly requires some parsing, applies when a defendant uses a means of identification — such as the stolen Social Security numbers here (the “source ID number”) — to produce or obtain another means of identification— such as the duplicated Social Security numbers on the bogus Social Security cards (the “produced ID number”). It also applies if a defendant possesses five or more such produced ID numbers. See id. Both the source ID numbers and the produced ID numbers must be of actual, not fictitious,…

dissenting:

In my view, despite its efforts at “parsing” the enhancement language challenged by Melendrez, the majority has garbled a different aspect of U.S.S.G. § 2Bl.l(b)(9)(C) — the requirement that the means of identification serving as the basis for the sentencing enhancement be “bred” from another means of identification. Because the district court based its sentence on a similar misreading of the guidelines, I would vacate and remand for resentencing.

What Melendrez did — manufacture bogus identification documents on his computer — was illegal. And because he pleaded guilty to unlawfully “produc[ing] an identification document or a false identification document,” 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (a)(1), he will serve time in federal prison. In other words, Melendrez will be punished for creating false identification. The question is whether the identity theft enhancement applies. In my view, it does not because only a single means of identification was involved.

As the majority aptly notes, we are presented with “the convoluted wording and structure of the enhancement and its commentary.” Op. at 881-32. The language is ambiguous at best — a point underscored by the ink spilled by both…