United States v. Mahsa Parviz

131 F.4th 966 (9th Cir. 2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · March 19, 2025 · No. 22-50160

Summary

The Ninth Circuit affirmed Mahsa Parviz’s convictions for making a false statement in a passport application and aggravated identity theft. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the finding that Parviz fraudulently used a medical provider’s identifying information at the crux of the passport fraud, as required under Dubin v. United States. The court also upheld the jury instruction concerning use without lawful authority, the denial of sentencing credit for time served on a related Texas offense, and a supervised-release condition prohibiting contact with Parviz’s daughter.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Daniel P. Collins; Holly A. Thomas; Anthony D. Johnstone
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decision date
March 19, 2025
Docket number
22-50160
Procedural posture
Defendant appealed her jury convictions for making a false statement in a passport application and aggravated identity theft, as well as her sentence and a special supervised-release condition. The Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of her Rule 29 motion de novo and reviewed the challenged sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion.
Standard of review
Denial of a Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal is reviewed de novo, with sufficiency measured by whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Sentencing departure decisions and the challenged supervised-release condition are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Precedential value
Published and precedential Ninth Circuit opinion
Parties
Mahsa Parviz v. United States of America
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureevidencestatutory interpretationsentencingappellate procedure

Practice areas

Federal criminal lawCriminal appellate procedureSentencingIdentity theftPassport fraud

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the evidence was sufficient under Dubin v. United States to establish that Parviz used Barker's means of identification at the crux of the underlying passport fraud.
  2. Whether use of Barker's means of identification with his alleged complicity was nevertheless use 'without lawful authority' under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1).
  3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by declining to reduce Parviz's sentence or grant a downward departure for time served in Texas on her attempted-kidnapping conviction.
  4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing a supervised-release condition prohibiting Parviz from contacting or approaching C.P.

Holdings

  1. The evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find that Parviz fraudulently misused Barker's means of identification and that the misuse was at the crux of the underlying passport fraud.
  2. Consent or complicity by the person whose identifying information is used is not an element that the Government must disprove; the district court correctly instructed the jury and correctly denied acquittal on this ground.
  3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply a discretionary downward departure for time Parviz served on the Texas attempted-kidnapping conviction.
  4. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a condition prohibiting Parviz from contacting or approaching C.P.

Key quotations

For the foregoing reasons, a rational jury could find that Parviz fraudulently misused Barker’s identity in the letter, which was crucial to her securing a passport for C.P. We therefore hold that the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that Parviz’s use of Barker’s means of identification was at “the crux of [her] underlying criminality.” (131 F.4th at 973-974)
Because no intervening Supreme Court or en banc decision is “clearly irreconcilable” with Osuna-Alvarez, we remain bound by its construction of the phrase “without lawful authority” in § 1028A. (131 F.4th at 975)

Factual background

Parviz lost her parental rights to her biological daughter, C.P., and was permanently enjoined by a Texas court from contacting or approaching C.P. She nevertheless sought a passport for C.P. to facilitate a planned kidnapping and removal of the child from the United States. To avoid the passport requirement that C.P. appear in person, Parviz submitted a fraudulent medical letter using nurse practitioner Bret Allen Barker's name, professional identifiers, and purported signature, falsely stating that C.P. was critically ill and unable to appear. A jury convicted Parviz of passport fraud and aggravated identity theft.

Procedural history

Parviz was indicted in the Central District of California after federal authorities investigated her fraudulent passport application for her daughter. Following a jury trial, she was convicted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1542 and 1028A(a)(1), sentenced to 37 months on the passport-fraud count and a consecutive 24 months on the aggravated-identity-theft count, and placed on supervised release with a no-contact condition concerning her daughter. The district court denied her Rule 29 motion and alternative motion for a new trial. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…