United States v. Howard Webber ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     NOV 1 2018
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No.   17-10242
    Plaintiff-Appellee,           D.C. No. CR 13-00662-RS-2
    v.
    HOWARD WEBBER,                                   MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Northern California,
    Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted October 10, 2018
    San Francisco, California
    Before: MURGUIA and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and HINKLE,**
    District Judge
    The jury convicted the defendant Howard Webber of mail fraud and
    aggravated identity theft. He raises three issues on appeal.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as
    provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The Honorable Robert L. Hinkle, United States District Judge for the Northern
    District of Florida, sitting by designation.
    First, he challenges the denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal on
    aggravated identity theft. The identity theft occurred when fraudulent tax returns
    were submitted bearing the purported signatures of three individuals, which were
    actually signed by Mr. Webber’s co-conspirator Clifford Dale Bercovich. There
    was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to conclude Mr. Webber aided and
    abetted Mr. Bercovich’s forgeries.
    Aggravated identity theft occurs when a person “knowingly transfers,
    possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another
    person,” during and in relation to a felony of a kind enumerated in the statute. 28
    U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). Mr. Webber argues that an identity is “used” only when a
    person attempts to pass himself off as someone else. But in United States v. Blixt,
    
    548 F.3d 882
    , 887–88 (9th Cir. 2008), we held that the defendant “used” an
    identity when she submitted a document with a forged signature. The jury was
    entitled to find that that occurred here.
    Second, Mr. Webber challenges the giving of an aiding-and-abetting
    instruction on aggravated identity theft. The statute that makes it a federal crime to
    aid and abet another federal crime is 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have held that every
    indictment implicitly alleges aiding and abetting; an explicit allegation or citation
    to § 2 is unnecessary. See, e.g., United States v. Armstrong, 
    909 F.2d 1238
    , 1241
    (9th Cir. 1990) (“Aiding and abetting is implied in every federal indictment for a
    2
    substantive offense.”); see also United States v. Garcia, 
    400 F.3d 816
    , 817 (9th
    Cir. 2005) (same). Here the indictment alleged aiding and abetting on mail fraud,
    not on identity theft, but this omission could not have misled or prejudiced Mr.
    Webber. The government’s theory of the case from the outset was that Mr. Webber
    acted together with Mr. Bercovich to carry out the unlawful scheme. This was a
    classic case of aiding and abetting, not just on mail fraud, but also on identity theft.
    Third, Mr. Webber challenges the district court’s determination that he was
    an organizer or leader of criminal activity involving five or more participants,
    resulting in a four-level increase under United States Sentencing Guidelines
    Manual § 3B1.1. The determination was not clearly erroneous. There was evidence
    that Mr. Webber directed the activity of Mr. Bercovich and others who recruited
    additional individuals for whom tax returns were submitted. The number of
    participants exceeded five, even counting only Mr. Webber, Mr. Bercovich, and
    the recruiters.
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-10242

Filed Date: 11/1/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/1/2018