6th Cir. Pattern Crim. Jury Instr. 15.03

(1) Count ___ of the indictment charges the defendant with violating federal law by knowingly possessing an [identification document or authentication feature] of the United States that was [stolen or produced without lawful authority], knowing that the [document] [feature] was [stolen or produced without lawful authority].

For you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, you must find that the government has proved each and every one of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(A) First: That the defendant knowingly possessed an [identification document or authentication feature] that was [stolen or produced without lawful authority]

(B) Second: That the defendant knew that the [identification document or authentication feature] was [stolen or produced without lawful authority].

(C) Third: That the [identification document] [authentication feature] was or appeared to be issued by or under the authority of the United States or a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance.]

(2) Now I will give you more detailed instructions on some of these terms.

(A) The term “[identification document] [authentication feature]” is defined as follows. [Insert definition(s) from two options below as appropriate.]

(i) [The term “identification document” means a document made or issued by or under the authority of

– [the United States Government]

– [a State]

– [a political subdivision of a State]

– [a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance]

– [a foreign government]

– [a political subdivision of a foreign government]

– [an international governmental organization]

– [an international quasi-government organization]

which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals.]

(ii) [The term “authentication feature” means any

– [hologram]

– [watermark]

– [certification symbol]

– [code]

– [image]

– [sequence of numbers or letters]

– [other feature]

that is used by the issuing authority on an

– [identification document]

– [document-making implement]

– [means of identification]

to determine if the document is counterfeit, altered, or otherwise falsified.]

(B) [Insert applicable definition of possession from Instructions 2.10, 2.10A, and 2.11 here or as a separate instruction].

(C) An act is done “knowingly” if done voluntarily and intentionally, and not because of mistake or accident or other innocent reason.

(D) The term “produced” means made or manufactured and includes altering, authenticating, or assembling.

(3) If you are convinced that the government has proved all of these elements, say so by returning a guilty verdict on this charge. If you have a reasonable doubt about any one of these elements, then you must find the defendant not guilty of this charge.

Use Note

Subsection 1028(d) provides definitions for many terms beyond those included in the instruction.

Brackets indicate options for the court.

Italics indicate notes to the court.

Committee Commentary Instruction 15.03

(current through May 29, 2026)

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(6) provides: “Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this section-- . . . (6) knowingly possesses an identification document or authentication feature that is or appears to be an identification document or authentication feature of the United States or a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance which is stolen or produced without lawfully authority knowing that such document or feature was stolen or produced without such authority . . . shall be punished . . . .”

The list of elements in paragraph (1) is derived from the statute, § 1028(a)(6); United States v. Svoboda, 633 F.3d 479 (6th Cir. 2011); and United States v. Gros, 824 F.2d 1487 (6th Cir. 1987). The specific language in paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) is based on § 1028(a)(6). The language in paragraph (1)(C) is based on § 1028(a)(6) and (c)(1). In Svoboda, supra, the court approved an instruction for § 1028(a)(6) requiring that the government prove that “‘the defendant knowingly possessed an identification document or authentication feature that is or appears to be an identification document or authentication feature of the United States with knowledge that it was produced without lawful authority.’” Similarly, in United States v. Gros, 824 F.2d 1487 (6th Cir. 1987), the court approved instructions for § 1028(a)(6) stating that the government had to prove that (1) the defendant knowingly possessed identification documents that appeared to be identification documents of the United States and (2) that the defendant had knowledge that the above-described documents were stolen or produced without the authority of the United States. Id. at 1492. The instruction includes these elements but divides them into three parts.

The elements for this crime listed in paragraph (1) do not include a jurisdictional base because it is unnecessary. The statute lists three ways to establish jurisdiction in subsection (c). The jurisdictional option in subsection (c)(1) will automatically be established by proof of the other elements of the crime under subsection (a)(6). This is because subsections (a)(6) and (c)(1) have identical language. The law is clear that only one of the three jurisdictional circumstances listed in subsection (c) of the statute must be met, see Gros, 824 F.2d at 1494 (approving instructions in § 1028(a)(3) case which required only one jurisdictional requirement from § 1028(c) to be met). Because the elements under subsection (a)(6) will inevitably establish the jurisdictional base from subsection (c)(1), it is unnecessary to include those provisions again in the instruction.

The language of paragraph (2)(A) defining the terms “identification document” and “authentication feature” is based on §§ 1028(d)(3) and (d)(1), respectively. Some of the options within each definition were bracketed to limit unnecessary words and to allow the court to tailor the instruction to the facts of the case.

The definition in paragraph (2)(B) of “possess” is a cross-reference to other pattern instructions which define the term possess in federal crimes generally based on Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit cases. See Instructions 2.10, 2.10A, and 2.11

The definition of knowingly in paragraph (2)(C) is based on Svoboda, supra, in which the court found no error in the instructions defining “knowingly” in a prosecution under § 1028(a)(6). The definition is drawn verbatim from the instruction used in Svoboda, supra at 485.

The definition in paragraph (2)(D) of “produced” as made or manufactured is based on the Random House Dictionary, 2010. The language on alter, authenticate, or assemble is taken from § 1028(d)(9), which states that the term produce “includes” alter, authenticate, or assemble.

The good-faith defense (see Instruction 10.04) is not available to a defendant charged with a violation of § 1028(a)(6) who claims he relied on a legal interpretation of a layman. Svoboda, supra at 484.