Business Law Case Briefing, Essay Example

Issue 1

Flores-Figueroa v United States, No. 08-108 gave rise to the government showing that the defendant knowing and intentionally knew the stolen identity belonged to another in order to convict under identity theft 18 U.S.C. 1028 A (a)(1).

Issue 2

Petitioner Figueroa used a fake social security card and number in order to obtain employment at a steel company in Iowa. Petitioner also used a fake resident alien card inter alia.

Issue 3

The documents bore an ‘assumed name’ but they did not belong to a ‘real person’.

Issue 4

Six years later Mr. Figueroa obtained a counterfeit social security card and permanent resident alien cards under his ‘own name’. The company he worked for became suspicious and turned him over to the federal authorities. Figueroa this time alleged again he ‘was not aware whether the numbers he used on both sets of documents actually belonged to a ‘real person’. Authorities ‘determined they had in fact been issued to another person.”

Issue 5

Figueroa argued under Statute that he did not know the two cards belonged to other persons. The government denied his claim for acquittal stating that was not a proper affirmative defense for denying of the motion for identity theft.

Issue 6

According to the Petition of Certiorari filed by the Petitioner, Figueroa argued on the principle set by the previous three Court of Appeals that under the “knowledge requirement” of 1028 a (1) the Government is required to prove the Defendant was using an identification belonging to another.

Issue 7

The circuit courts were not concurring on their decisions and Figueroa further argued it was very strong for his case that the case was “ripe for a resolution at the appellate level”.

Issue 8

Figueroa most important attacked the Eighth (8^th) Circuit’s ruling on “the merits of the case” in which he stated conflicted with the statute and the rule of lenity.

Issue 9

Drawing on United States v. Morissette and various common law sources, Flores-Figueroa insists that an essential element of “theft” is the knowledge that the stolen property belongs to someone else.

Issue 10

Flores-Figueroa again turns to the rule of lenity. The text, structure, and history of the statute do not establish that the government’s interpretation is unambiguously correct, he argues, and therefore the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the defendant.

Issue 11

Could the Government prove aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A (a) (1)?

Justice Alito asked whether the use of a common name on a fake identification would be sufficient to establish knowledge.

Issue 12

Can the Government and Prosecution used the term ‘implication’ that the Defendant ‘knowingly knew of the knowledge that he was committing identity theft?

Issue 13

The opinion of the court states that the verb ‘knowingly’ has to be considered in context as well as the Defendant’s ‘state of mind’ when committing the alleged crime.

Issue 14

Further it has to be considered that the Defendant was a of majority age and of full competency and not under ‘duress’. In other words he was not a child as presented in “Brief for the United States 9”.

Issue 15:

The government has not provided Prosecution with any sufficient doubt that the transitive meaning of the verb ‘knowingly’ should be taken out of ordinary context in order to be used in another way other than to convict the Defendant.

Issue 16:

Do court of Appeals and United States Supreme courts interpret words and statutes in an ‘ordinary meaning? This is very important to interpreting this case and making a decision.

Issue 17:

As distinguished in United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U. S. 64, 79 (1994) (STEVENS, J., concurring) in criminal cases the prosecution normally introduces the elements of the crime in an ordinary, substantial and ‘knowing applying each work to each element of the crime.’

Issue 18:

It is important to note as an issue of law that the English ordinary and substantial interpretation of a law, element or phrase is applied in the United States and English law.

References

US Supreme Court Cases (2009) Retrieved February 20, 2010 from, http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_108/

Cornell University Law School (2009) Retrieved February 20, 2010 from, http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-108