Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 24
 
PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
 
U
NITED
 S
TATES OF
 A
MERICA
,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.No. 11-4273
J
IMMY
 E
ARL
 H
ILTON
, J
R
.,
 Defendant-Appellant.
 
U
NITED
 S
TATES OF
 A
MERICA
,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.No. 11-4298
T
AMATHA
 M
ICHELE
 M
ONEY
 H
ILTON
,
 Defendant-Appellant.
 
U
NITED
 S
TATES OF
 A
MERICA
,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.No. 11-4743
J
ACQUELINE
 H. H
ILTON
 Defendant-Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Courtfor the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge.(5:10-cr-00002-RLV-DSC-2; 5:10-cr-00002-RLV-DSC-1;5:10-cr-00002-RLV-DSC-3)
 
Argued: October 24, 2012Decided: December 13, 2012Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, KEENAN, Circuit Judge,and R. Bryan HARWELL, United States District Judgefor the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by publishedopinion. Judge Keenan wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge Traxler and Judge Harwell joined.
COUNSELARGUED:
 Rudolph Alexander Ashton, III, MCCOTTER,ASHTON & SMITH, PA, New Bern, North Carolina; DanielBaker McIntyre, III, Charlotte, North Carolina; Lawrence W.Hewitt, GUTHRIE DAVIS HENDERSON & STATON,Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellants. Michael E. Savage,OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Char-lotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF:
 Anne M.Tompkins, United States Attorney, Benjamin Bain-Creed,Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITEDSTATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.
OPINION
BARBARA MILANO KEENAN, Circuit Judge:In this appeal, Jacqueline, Tamatha, and Jimmy Hilton (col-lectively, the defendants) challenge their convictions oncharges involving a scheme to defraud The Woodsmiths
2U
NITED
 S
TATES
 v. H
ILTON
 
Company (Woodsmiths, or the company), a small North Car-olina furniture manufacturer that was Tamatha Hilton’semployer. The primary issue before us is whether the statutesprohibiting identity theft and aggravated identity theft, 18U.S.C. §§ 1028(a)(7) and 1028A, under which Jimmy Hiltonand Jacqueline Hilton were convicted, encompass the theft of the identity of a corporation. We hold that these statutes arefatally ambiguous in this respect, and we vacate the convic-tions of Jimmy Hilton and Jacqueline Hilton on these counts.We conclude that the defendants’ other arguments are withoutmerit. Accordingly, we affirm Tamatha Hilton’s convictions.We also affirm the remaining convictions of Jimmy Hiltonand Jacqueline Hilton, but vacate the sentences imposed andremand those convictions to the district court for resentenc-ing. I.The charges in this case arose from a two-year scheme inwhich the defendants defrauded Woodsmiths of about$655,000, by stealing and cashing numerous checks written toWoodsmiths by its customers. Tamatha Hilton (Tamatha) wasWoodsmiths’ office manager and bookkeeper. As part of herduties, Tamatha possessed the only keys to Woodsmiths’ postoffice box and was responsible for retrieving the company mail.
1
Tamatha participated in the fraud by sending companyinvoices to customers, requesting that they mail either initialor final payment for their furniture orders to the companyaddress. When the checks arrived at the company’s post officebox, Tamatha removed the checks and, instead of depositingthem into the company’s bank account, gave them to her hus-band and co-defendant, Jimmy Hilton (Jimmy). During thecourse of the scheme, Tamatha stole approximately 168checks in the aggregate amount of about $655,000.
1
All mail addressed to Woodsmiths’ physical address was rerouted bythe Postal Service to the post office box.
3U
NITED
 S
TATES
 v. H
ILTON

Вознаградите свое любопытство

Все, что вы хотели прочитать.
Когда угодно. Где угодно. На любом устройстве.
Без обязательств. Отменить можно в любой момент.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505