Flores Ignacio

Flores Ignacio

Flores Ignacio was a Mexican immigrant petitioner. He acquired a false identification document in the United States of America to get a job at L&m Steel Services. Flores was using a fake social security number, name, and resident foreign card. He wanted to change and start using his real name after using a false document for six years. Therefore, he decided to buy a different set of false social security and resident cards, which are permanent. Flores presented the newly purchased documents to the company. L&M Steel service cm-any reported the change of document to the immigration department of the United States of America. Due to Flores, the new identification and documents belonged to a different person.

The Immigration and Customs department charged Flores with inappropriate use of immigration documents and illegal entry into the United States of America. He was also charged with aggravated identity theft. The accused pleaded guilty to the fist offenses and challenged aggravated identity. Flores claimed the federal department does not have enough evidence proving federal identity statute has been violated. He also argues that he was not aware of the identification documents that belonged to a different person. The district court ruled in favor of the United States of America. Flores was sentenced to a seventy-five-month prison term. The sentence was also accompanied by a 24-month mandatory sentence for aggravated identity theft. After appealing, the Eighth Circuit upheld the decision of the district court.

The court was relying on the previous decision during the proceeding of the United States vs. Mendoza-Gonzalez. The Eighth Circuit Court determined the United States did have to prove that Flores was aware that identification documents belonged to the other person. According to the interpretation relating to the aggravated identity theft statute, the court highlighted the term “knowingly” will never be used in place of “another person.”

The statutory provision is generally based on references to particular crimes such as theft from the government property, involvement on unlawful events that are related to visas, immigration, and passports. The law states that if a person commits such crimes knowingly without proper supervision from the lawful authority, the judge will have to add a two-year sentence to the underlying conviction. The accused argues that the government needs to prove that he knew the identification means belonged to another person. The government provides a counter-argument noting that the statute does not enforce the highlighted knowledge. On the other hand, the government acknowledges that the word knowingly has been used in the law. Besides, the government also notes that the word does not modify the last phrase of the statute, which “a means of identification of another person,” and it does make changes to the previous three words depicted on the phrase which is of another person.”

Flores has come with an argument that knowingly only modifies both the verb and objects directly. Therefore, Flores wants the state to prove that he was possessing, transferring, utilizing identification information that belonged to another person. Based on the information given by Flores, offering an interpretation so that knowingly is applicable to mean of identification of a different individual is consistent with old rules. Flores refers to traditional standards on theft highlights that the defendant must be aware of the owner of the stolen property. Additionally, criminal law allows for a presumption of the requirement s of the era of the means apply to all elements of the crime. Flores calls for the application of unwritten laws, so the statute requires the accused to be aware of the information belong to another individual. According to Flores, the aim of the congress on imposing aggravated identity statute on theft was to attract harsh forms of punishment on identity theft, “above and beyond the penalties provided by the predicate offense.” Congress made sure that the sentence of aggravated identity theft is served in jail. Also, it will be consecutive to predicate offense sentence. The congress had the idea of punishing individuals who access identification documents that they are aware that it belongs to someone else. Flores argues the intention of congress to punish such offenses should be served through punishing petitioners, whose identification that belongs to another person. Flores powerfully highlights Congress intended him and other defendants with similar crimes to be guilty of identification fraud instead of theft aggravated identity.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly disfavored strict liability to certain items found in the federal criminal statutes. The assumption that is given to certain liabilities is normally pronounced when the statute in question contains a mens era. Based on the case of Flores, the court terminated certain cases by clarifying and interpretive approach, which is in line with the application of the men’s era term. In this particular case, the framework was mainly focused on grammar and text instead of particular and substantive principles of criminal law. On the other hand, the arguments fail to prove that theft settles the meaning of common law in relation to the context of identification theft. The reliance on traditional law does not give the exact meaning of identity law as it is not provided in a criminal statute. Traditional rules should not be used to undermine the clear meaning of the statute.