Flores-Figueroa v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 · Criminal Law

556 U.S. 646 (2009)

Updated August 1, 2026

Criminal Lawmens reastatutory interpretationknowinglyaggravated identity theft18 U.S.C. §1028A(a)(1)ordinary meaninggrammar

Facts

Flores-Figueroa, a citizen of Mexico, first used counterfeit employment documents bearing false identifying information and numbers that were not assigned to a real person. In 2006, he presented new counterfeit Social Security and alien registration cards using his real name, but the numbers on those cards were in fact assigned to other people. After his employer reported him, the Government charged him with entering the United States without inspection, misusing immigration documents, and aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. §1028A(a)(1). Flores sought acquittal on the aggravated identity theft counts, arguing the Government could not prove he knew the numbers belonged to other people.

Issue

Does 18 U.S.C. §1028A(a)(1), which punishes anyone who "knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person," require the Government to prove that the defendant knew the means of identification belonged to another person?

Rule

Under 18 U.S.C. §1028A(a)(1), the Government must prove that the defendant knew that the means of identification he unlawfully transferred, possessed, or used belonged to another person. As ordinarily read in English and in criminal statutory interpretation, "knowingly" applies to all the subsequently listed elements of the offense absent sufficient contextual indication to overcome that reading.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Nora Velasquez bought a counterfeit work-permit card from a street vendor and used it to complete hiring paperwork at Sonoran Mesa Logistics. The card displayed her name but a number that, unbeknownst to Nora, had been assigned to an actual person.

If Nora is prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. §1028A(a)(1) based on that use, what must the government prove to obtain a conviction?

Explanation. The majority held that in §1028A(a)(1), "knowingly" applies to the phrase "of another person." So the government must prove the defendant knew the means of identification belonged to another person. It is not enough to show only knowing unlawful use of false documents, and the statute does not additionally require proof of intent to injure the victim.