United States of America v. SANDRA YVONNE BUCKERIDGE a/k/a Natasha Massicot Sandra Yvonne Buckeridge

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 08-2744
____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee
v.
SANDRA YVONNE BUCKERIDGE
a/k/a
Natasha Massicot
Sandra Yvonne Buckeridge,
Appellant
____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of the Virgin Islands
(D.C. No. 07-cr-00017)
District Judge: Honorable Curtis V. Gomez
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 21, 2009
Before: BARRY, HARDIMAN and COWEN, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: June 01, 2009)
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________

-- 1 of 2 --

2
HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.
Sandra Buckeridge appeals her conviction for aggravated identity theft in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) (Count IV). Buckeridge argues that § 1028A(a)(1) requires
that the Government prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew the documents she
used in committing her underlying felony belonged to an actual person. This issue, which
was the subject of a difference of opinion among the United States Courts of Appeals,
was resolved by the Supreme Court in Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1886
(2009). In Flores-Figueroa, the Court held that the Government must show that the
defendant knew that the means of identification he used belonged to another person in
order to prove aggravated identity theft. Id. at 1888. Because the Government made no
effort to prove that Buckeridge had such knowledge, it has rightly conceded in its
supplemental brief that Buckeridge’s conviction for aggravated identity theft must be
vacated. Accordingly, we will vacate Buckeridge’s conviction on Count IV and remand
for resentencing.

-- 2 of 2 --