No. 25-796

Princewill Arinze Duru v. United States

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2026-01-07
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived Experienced Counsel
Tags: bank-fraud criminal-statute identity-theft means-of-identification sentencing-guidelines victim-definition
Latest Conference: 2026-02-20
Question Presented (from Petition)

Title 18, United State Code, Section 1028A imposes a mandatory two-year consecutive sentence on anyone who "knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority , a means of identification of another person " "during and in relation to" an enumerated felony. As Dubin v. United States, 599 U.S. 110, 114 (2023), confirmed, for a conviction under that statute to stand, the government must prove that the transfer, possession, or use of the means of identification lies "at the crux of what makes the underlying offense criminal." Despite this, a divided Ninth Circ uit panel affirmed Mr. Duru's Section 1028A conviction based his use of his own identity to open two bank accounts. And although those accounts were linked to a single attempted deposit from one individual, the panel affirmed the determination that the offense involved 10 or more victims under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(I ) based on individuals who suffered no actual loss . The questions presented are:

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1028A , which applies to the use "without lawful authority, [of] a means of identification of another person " permits conviction based on a defendant's consensual use and sharing of his own information.

2. Whether using a means of identification to open a bank account satisfies the requirement that th at use be at the "crux of what makes the underlying offense criminal."

3. Whether the term "victim" in U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i) include s individuals who sustained no actual loss.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1028A permits conviction based on a defendant's consensual use of his own identity and whether using a means of identification to open a bank account satisfies the statutory requirements for criminal offense

Docket Entries

2026-02-23
Petition DENIED.
2026-01-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/20/2026.
2026-01-15
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2026-01-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 6, 2026)
2025-12-02
Application (25A636) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until January 2, 2026.
2025-11-24
Application (25A636) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 3, 2025 to January 2, 2026, submitted to Justice Kagan.

Attorneys

Princewell Duru
Anne Margaret VoigtsPillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Petitioner
United States
D. John SauerSolicitor General, Respondent