CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PHILIP E. MICHAEL, II,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 17-5626
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.
No. 3:16-cr-00101-1—Charles R. Simpson, III, District Judge.
Argued: January 31, 2018
Decided and Filed: February 20, 2018
Before: SUHRHEINRICH, SUTTON, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. What does it mean to “use[]” someone else’s “means of identification”? 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). The question arises in the context of an indictment alleging that Philip Michael used a doctor’s means of identification (his name and identification number) and a patient’s means of identification (his name and birth date) to request insurance reimbursement for a drug the doctor never prescribed and the patient never requested. Michael claims that the statute covers only impersonations, and he never impersonated anyone. Even if he fraudulently used a doctor’s identification number and a patient’s name, he says, he still submitted the reimbursement claim in his name. But the statute is not so confined, as the words of the provision and the cases interpreting it show.

. . .

We reverse the district court’s decision and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.