United States v. Amanda Komp

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 22-3198 ___________________________

United States of America,

Plaintiff Appellee,

v.

Amanda Renee Komp,

Defendant Appellant. ___________________________

No. 22-3222 ___________________________

Tammy McCullough,

Defendant Appellant. ____________

Appeals from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith ____________ Submitted: February 13, 2023 Filed: February 16, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________

Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Amanda Komp and Tammy McCullough appeal after they were found guilty by a jury of fraud offenses. They argue that the district court1 erred in denying their motions for judgment of acquittal as to the offense of aggravated identity theft, asserting that a signature does not constitute a “means of identification” under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028(d)(7) and 1028A. We conclude that the district court did not err, because a forged signature constitutes a “means of identification” under the applicable provisions. See United States v. Porter, 745 F.3d 1035, 1042 (10th Cir. 2014); United States v. Blixt, 548 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________

1 The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

-2-