third element, that Joseph used Stevens’ means of identification “without lawful authority.” The government need not show that a defendant stole another person’s means of identification in order to establish that he used it without lawful authority. See United States v. Hurtado, 508 F.3d 603, 607-08 (11th Cir.2007), abrogated on other grounds by Flores-Figueroa, 556 U.S. 646, 129 S.Ct. 1886; United States v. Lumbard, 706 F.3d 716, 725 (6th Cir.2013) (concluding “that the phrase ‘without lawful authority’ in § 1028A is not limited to instances of theft”). The government can establish that a defendant used another’s means of identification “without lawful authority” by showing that the defendant used it without permission. See United States v. Hines, 472 F.3d 1038, 1040 (8th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Or the government can establish that a
holding a social security number is not private holding a forged signature constitutes the use of that persons name and thus qualifies as a means of identification under the statute holding that basic identification data such as name age current address and social security number is not generally subject to miranda holding that a defendants use of a persons name and social security number without permission constituted the use of a means of identification without lawful authority holding that use of social security benefits satisfied child support obligation