green
Positive treatment
35.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ruslan Kirilyuk
Both credit card numbers and the information stolen from the students, such as social security numbers, are “means of identification.” See, e.g., United States v. Melendrez, 389 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ivan Suchowolski
Although other courts interpreting § 2B1.1 have found it to be “awkwardly written”, United States v. Hawes, 523 F.3d 245, 249 (3d Cir. 2008); United States v. Melendrez, 389 F.3d 829, 832 (9th Cir. 2004), they have applied the enhancement, Hawes, 523 F.3d at 249 ; Melendrez, 389 F.3d at 832 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Kleiner
(2×)
In support, Sash quoted United States v. Melendrez, in which the Ninth Circuit held- — contrary to what Kleiner urges here — that “an unlawfully produced duplicate means of identification still subjects a defendant to the § 2Bl.l(b)( [11] )(C) enhancement because ‘there is no requirement that the source ID number and the produced ID [number] be different numbers.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Melendrez, 389 F.3d 829, 834 (9th Cir.2004)) (alteration in Sash).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Kleiner
For consistency, we refer here to the current codification. 9 Ninth Circuit held—contrary to what Kleiner urges here—that “an unlawfully produced duplicate means of identification still subjects a defendant to the § 2B1.1(b)([11])(C) enhancement because ‘there is no requirement that the source ID number and the produced ID [number] be different numbers.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Melendrez, 389 F.3d 829, 834 (9th Cir. 2004)) (alteration in Sash).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Eduardo Castellanos-Loya
See United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 230, 234 (4th Cir.2008); United States v. Melendrez, 389 F.3d 829, 834 (9th Cir.2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Robert Dehaney
Because a United States passport is not a “means of identification,” as defined in the statute, see United States v. Melendrez, 389 F.3d 829, 833-34 (9th Cir.2004) (distinguishing between “means of identification” and “identification documents” as defined in § 1028), the § 2B1.6 exception does not apply.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hawes
(6×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
We begin by asking whether the statute's plain terms address the precise question of whether changing an address constitutes producing or obtaining "any other means of identification." As the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has observed, "the enhancement is rather awkwardly written." United States v. Melendrez, 389 F.3d 829, 832 (9th Cir.2004). *250 "Means of identification" is defined both in general terms as "any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual" and in specific terms as an extensive list of particul…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hawes
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
We begin by asking whether the statute’s plain terms address the precise question of whether changing an address constitutes producing or obtaining “any other means of identification.” As the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has observed, “the enhancement is rather awkwardly written.” United States v. Melendrez, 389 F.3d 829, 832 (9th Cir. 2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hawes
(2×)
We begin by asking whether the statute’s plain terms address the precise question of whether changing an address constitutes producing or obtaining “any other means of identification.” As the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has observed, “the enhancement is rather awkwardly written.” United States v. Melendrez, 389 F.3d 829, 832 (9th Cir. 2004).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Elmardoudi
United States v. Melendrez, 389 F.3d 829, 834 (9th Cir.2004); see also United States v. Oates, 427 F.3d 1086, 1090 (8th Cir.2005) (quoting Melendrez with approval).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Kowal
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence and stated: “When an actual individual’s social security number is paired with a fictitious name on a subsequently obtained means of identification, it does not necessarily ‘sever the ties linking the victims and the Social Security numbers.’ ” Id. at 1090 (quoting United States v. Melendrez, 389 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir.2004)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Newsome
The hybrid products were another means of 7 We do not presently adopt the Ninth Circuit’s reading of “means of identification” in Melendrez, 389 F.3d at 831.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Alrahman Muhammad Newsome
We do not presently adopt the Ninth Circuit's reading of "means of identification” in Melendrez, 389 F.3d at 831.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Joseph Jonquil Oates
When an actual individual’s social security number is paired with a fictitious name on a subsequently obtained means of identification, it does not necessarily “sever the ties linking the victims and the Social Security numbers.” United States v. Melendrez, 389 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir.2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Joseph Jonquil Oates
When an actual individual's social security number is paired with a fictitious name on a subsequently obtained means of identification, it does not necessarily "sever the ties linking the victims and the Social Security numbers." United States v. Melendrez, 389 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2004).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Aderinoye
See United States v. Melendrez, 389 F.3d 829, 830 (9th Cir. 2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Nolte
See United States v. Dehaney, 455 Fed.Appx. 781, 783 (9th Cir. 2011) (distinguishing between “means of identification” and “identification documents” and holding that “[b]ecause a United States passport is not a ‘means of identification/ as defined in the statute,” Application Note 2 does not apply (citing United States v. Melendrez, 389 F.3d 829, 833-34 (9th Cir. 2004))). 5 We believe that the plain language supports the government’s argument.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Sedrick Bagby
See United States v. Melendrez, 389 F.3d 829 (9th Cir.2004) (finding the enhancement applicable where the defendant had used stolen social security numbers to create false forms of identification). 2.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Vasquez
See United States v. Melendrez, 389 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir.2004) (using fictitious names on identification documents does not sever the link between the victim and his social security number).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Roberto Popa
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Melendrez, 389 F.3d at 834 (dismissing the notion that “a single means of identification is not sufficient.”) The aggravated theft provisions were thus correctly applied here.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Alfano
See United States v. Melendrez, 389 F.3d 829, 831-37 (9th Cir.2004); id. (dissenting opinion) at 837-40; see also United States v. Newsome, 439 F.3d 181 , 187 n. 7 (3d Cir.2006) *3 (declining to follow Melendrez).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Smith
See United States v. Melendrez, 389 F.3d 829, 831-32 (9th Cir.2004).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Pelasky, Timothy
See United States v. Melendrez, 389 F.3d 829, 830 (9th Cir.2004); United States v. Williams, 355 F.3d 893, 900 (6th Cir.2003).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Eliot S. Sash
See United States v. Melendrez, 389 F.3d 829, 834 (9th Cir.2004) (noting that an unlawfully produced duplicate means of identification still subjects a defendant to the § 2B1.1(b)(9)(C) enhancement because “there is no requirement that the source ID number and the produced ID [number] be different numbers”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Mitchell
See 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (d)(7)(A)-(D); United States v. Montejo, 442 F.3d at 214 (stating, in affirming a conviction for aggravated identity theft, that social security numbers and alien registration numbers are unique identifiers); see also United States v. Melendrez, 389 F.3d 829, 834 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining, in applying U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1(b)(9)(C) (2002), that a real social security number identifies a specific individual, even when paired with an incorrect name).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Deoderico Polintan SAN PEDRO, Petitioner,
v.
John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
v.
John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
02-74367.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Nov 8, 2004.
Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner., Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Director, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Donald E. Keener, Alison Marie Igoe, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Nelson, Kozinski, Graber.
Published
ORDER WITHDRAWING OPINION
ORDER
The opinion filed June 23, 2004, and appearing at 372 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir.2004) is withdrawn. It may not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit.