US v. Marco Huerta-Loya, No. 12-4321 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4321 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARCO HUERTA-LOYA, Defendant - Appellant.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-00070-AWA-TEM-1) Submitted: October 24, 2012 Decided: November 6, 2012 Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fernando Groene, FERNANDO GROENE, PC, Williamsburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Andrew L. Creighton, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: After pleading guilty to falsely claiming to be a United States citizen, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 911 (2006), Marco Huerta-Loya aggravated was convicted identity theft, following in a violation jury of trial 18 of U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), (c) (2006), and sentenced to twenty-four months and one day in prison. On appeal, Huerta-Loya challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his aggravated identity theft conviction. A For the following reasons, we affirm. defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence bears a heavy burden, as reversal of a conviction is limited to cases where the prosecution s failure is clear. United States v. Foster, 507 F.3d 233, 244-45 (4th Cir. 2007). Generally, we will sustain a guilty verdict that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, is supported by substantial evidence. United States v. Osborne, 514 (internal F.3d omitted). 377, 385 (4th Cir. 2008) quotation marks Further, we will not review the credibility of the witnesses and assume that the jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the government. Foster, 507 F.3d at 244-45. To establish a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), the Government must prove a defendant (1) unlawfully and knowingly transferred, possessed, or used, (2) another person s 2 means of identification, (3) during and in relation to a qualifying predicate felony offense, in this case, Huerta-Loya s false claim of United States citizenship. United Abdelshafi, 592 F.3d 602, 607 (4th Cir. 2010). States v. For purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), a means of identification is . . . any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual. Id. at 607 n.3 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Mitchell, (explaining 518 F.3d differences 230, 233-34 between (4th unique Cir. and 2008) non-unique identifiers). A conviction for aggravated identity theft requires proof that the defendant knew that the means of identification at issue actually belonged to a real person. Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646, 657 (2009). Huerta-Loya argues that the evidence at trial failed to prove that he possessed such knowledge because nothing indicated that he had the opportunity or means to learn that the documents he possessed, an authentic Social Security card and Texas birth certificate, belonged to a real person. The spoke and agent s Government s understood documents questioning, he We disagree. agent English well repeatedly possessed testified belonged 3 and, in indicated to a that real Huerta-Loya response that he person. to the knew the Although Huerta-Loya suggests that neither he nor the agent correctly understood one another due to a language barrier, we must assume that the jury resolved any evidentiary contradictions in the Government s favor. Foster, 507 F.3d at 244-45. Moreover, evidence regarding the way in which HuertaLoya obtained and used the documents in question suggested that he knew they substantially were more genuine. for the For birth example, Huerta-Loya certificate and the paid Social Security card, which the seller represented to be very good papers, than he did for a Texas photo-identification card he knew to be fraudulent. Such information supports a reasonable inference that Huerta-Loya was aware that the more expensive documents were genuine. United States v. Gomez-Castro, 605 F.3d 1245, 1249 (11th Cir. 2010). going rate for such The fact that Huerta-Loya paid the genuine documents in the area where he purchased them strengthens such an inference. Likewise, the documents a distinctive to reproduce, manner in that question, is very which were difficult and printed in expensive appeared authentic even to the untrained eye, further supporting the conclusion that Huerta-Loya knew they were real. United States v. Miranda-Lopez, 532 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2008). Additionally, Huerta-Loya admitted that he had successfully used the Social Security card to obtain employment, again suggesting his knowledge that 4 it was genuine. United States v. Holmes, 595 F.3d 1255, 1258 (11th Cir. 2010); GomezCastro, 605 F.3d at 1249. Construing as we must the relevant contradictory testimony in favor of the Government, the fact that Huerta-Loya falsely claimed United States citizenship even after the Government s agent had seized the Social Security card and the birth certificate also supports a reasonable finding that he United was confident States (suspect s v. Clark, response knowledge). sufficient in the 668 to Accordingly, to prove documents F.3d 568, investigation we that conclude authenticity. 574 relevant that Huerta-Loya (8th the knew Cf. Cir. 2012) to show evidence the means was of identification he possessed belonged to a real person. Huerta-Loya also contends that the evidence failed to establish that he possessed the documents in question in relation to his false claim of United States citizenship. In United States v. Mobley, 618 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2010), the Sixth Circuit relied upon Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (1993), to read the in relation to language of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) broadly, finding that it only required proof that the means of identification facilitated or had the potential to facilitate the predicate felony offense. Mobley, 618 F.3d at 548-50. Considering the use of analogous statutory language in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2006), we have interpreted in relation to in an equally broad fashion, finding specifically that a firearm is 5 carried in relation to a drug trafficking offense if it has the effect of protecting or emboldening the defendant in the commission of his crime. United States v. Lipford, 203 F.3d 259, 266 (4th Cir. 2000). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the evidence established the in relation to light most already been element. First, favorable to viewing the the Government, evidence the in documents the had recovered by the Government s agent at the time Huerta-Loya made his false claim of citizenship, thus permitting the conclusion that they emboldened Huerta-Loya s violation of 18 U.S.C. § 911 by serving as an immediate means of corroborating his deceptive statements. Further, the evidence established that Huerta-Loya, who was at work aboard a fishing vessel when initially detained, kept the birth certificate and the Social Security card close at hand and readily available. reasonable juror could On these facts, we conclude that a have found that Huerta-Loya did so because the documents would be helpful should he find himself in the exact predicament he in fact faced, the necessity that he quickly dispel suspicions regarding his citizenship unexpected investigations by immigration officials. during Cf. United States v. Mitchell, 104 F.3d 649, 654 (4th Cir. 1997) (firearm is not carried in relation to a drug crime when its presence is the product of accident or coincidence). 6 Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. The written judgment, however, erroneously reflects that HuertaLoya was found guilty by a jury of both Counts one and two. We remand to the district court for correction of the judgment, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 36, to reflect that Huerta-Loya pled guilty to Count one and was found guilty by a jury on Count two. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED 7
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
