United States v. Christopher Spears

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that “it is possible to ‘possess’ a [means of identification] without committing it to paper”
• warning, in interpreting the statutory language “another person,” that the government’s reading would “require a mandatory two-year consecutive sentence every time a tax-return preparer claims an improper deduction”
• describing an interpretation of the statute that would cover “every time a tax-return preparer claims an improper deduction”
• finding the phrase “another person” as used in an identity-theft statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, to be ambiguous and interpreting the phrase to mean, not “every person other than the defendant,” but “a person whose information has been misappropriated”
• “identity theft” occurs when someone's “iden- tity has been stolen or misappropriated”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).