The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a split decision in *United States v. Jennifer McDonald*, vacating her conviction for aggravated identity theft while affirming 30 fraud-related convictions. The published opinion, decided Feb. 5, 2026, represents a significant application of the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in *Dubin v. United States*.
Judge Roger Gregory wrote the unanimous opinion for a three-judge panel that included Circuit Judges Paul Niemeyer and Barbara Agee. The case originated from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia at Harrisonburg, where Chief District Judge Elizabeth Dillon presided over McDonald's criminal trial.
McDonald was indicted in August 2021 on 31 criminal charges, including 30 fraud-related counts and one count of aggravated identity theft. The district court convicted her on all counts following trial proceedings that concluded in the underlying criminal case numbered 5:21-cr-00012-EKD-JCH-1.
On appeal, McDonald challenged her aggravated identity theft conviction, arguing that the Government failed to prove the identity theft occurred "during and in relation to" the predicate fraud offenses as required by federal law. Her challenge relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation of this statutory language in *Dubin v. United States*, 599 U.S. 110 (2023).
The Fourth Circuit agreed with McDonald's argument regarding the identity theft charge. The court held that the district court should have entered a judgment of acquittal on the aggravated identity theft count because the evidence did not establish the required temporal and relational connection between the identity theft and the underlying fraud offenses.
This ruling reflects the continuing impact of the Supreme Court's decision in *Dubin*, which clarified when identity theft occurs "during and in relation to" predicate offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. The statute requires that defendants use another person's identification "during and in relation to" specified felony violations, creating both temporal and relational requirements that prosecutors must prove.
The *Dubin* decision has created new challenges for federal prosecutors pursuing aggravated identity theft charges in complex fraud cases. Courts must now carefully examine whether the use of stolen identities has the requisite connection to underlying criminal conduct rather than simply occurring in the same general time frame.
However, the Fourth Circuit affirmed all of McDonald's fraud-related convictions, finding no merit in her other appellate challenges. The court's decision to affirm these counts suggests that while the identity theft charge failed to meet the *Dubin* standard, the underlying fraud prosecutions were properly supported by sufficient evidence and correct legal proceedings.
The case was argued before the Fourth Circuit on Dec. 12, 2025, with Erin Margaret Trodden from the Office of the Federal Public Defender in Charlottesville representing McDonald. S. Cagle Juhan from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Charlottesville argued for the Government.
Federal Public Defender Mary Maguire and U.S. Attorney C. Todd Gilbert filed briefs in the case, indicating the significance both offices placed on the appellate proceedings and their potential precedential impact.
The Fourth Circuit's decision to publish the opinion signals its view that the ruling establishes important precedent for future cases involving aggravated identity theft charges in the circuit. Published opinions carry precedential weight and guide lower courts in similar cases, while unpublished opinions typically address case-specific issues without broader legal significance.
The court's ruling affects defendants facing similar charges across Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, all states within the Fourth Circuit's jurisdiction. Defense attorneys in these states now have circuit precedent supporting challenges to identity theft charges that lack sufficient connection to predicate offenses.
For prosecutors, the decision underscores the importance of carefully structuring aggravated identity theft charges to meet the *Dubin* standard. The ruling suggests that prosecutors must demonstrate more than mere temporal overlap between identity theft and fraud - they must show a meaningful relational connection.
The case returns to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Fourth Circuit's ruling. While McDonald's fraud convictions remain intact, the vacation of her identity theft conviction will likely result in a reduced sentence when the district court resentences her.
The McDonald decision joins a growing body of post-*Dubin* case law as federal courts continue interpreting the Supreme Court's guidance on aggravated identity theft prosecutions. The ruling demonstrates how Supreme Court decisions can have immediate practical effects on pending criminal cases and ongoing prosecutions.
Legal practitioners will likely watch how other circuits handle similar challenges to identity theft convictions in complex fraud cases, potentially creating the groundwork for future Supreme Court review if circuit splits develop over the proper application of the *Dubin* standard.