United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

____________ FILED December 1, 2023 No. 21-50380 Lyle W. Cayce Consolidated with Clerk No. 22-50659 ____________

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Bradley Lane Croft,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:18-CR-603-1 ______________________________

Before Graves, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Stephen A. Higginson, Circuit Judge: In 2019, Bradley Lane Croft was convicted of four counts of aggra- vated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. 1 After this court affirmed those convictions, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Dubin, 599 U.S. 110,

_____________________ 1 Croft was also convicted of eight counts of wire fraud, two counts of money laundering, and two counts of making false tax returns. As discussed in this opinion, these convictions are not challenged on remand. Case: 21-50380 Document: 00516987207 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/01/2023

No. 21-50380 c/w No. 22-50659

132 (2023), which articulated a new standard for convictions under § 1028A. Subsequently the Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case, vacated this court’s judgment, and remanded for consideration in light of Dubin. United States v. Croft, 143 S. Ct. 2635 (2023). Croft asks that this court vacate his convictions under § 1028A and remand this case for resentencing. During the pendency of this case, Croft also filed a pro se appeal after the district court denied his third motion for a new trial, in which he alleged newly dis- covered evidence that the government should have, but did not, produce un- der Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). At the same time, he moved for release pending appeal, arguing that he was likely to prevail in his direct ap- peal and his pro se appeal. Because of the interrelatedness of Croft’s direct and pro se appeals, No. 21-50380 and 22-50659, we sua sponte consolidate these cases. Having evaluated the evidence adduced at Croft’s trial under the “crux of the criminality” standard articulated in Dubin, we affirm Croft’s four convictions under § 1028A. We further affirm the district court’s de- nial of Appellant’s motion for a new trial, and deny as moot his motion for release pending appeal. I. Croft owned and operated Universal K-9, a school that primarily trained handlers and dogs for police work. Croft sought to expand the business by offering courses to veterans, who would pay tuition using G.I. Bill funds paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). However, to be eligible to receive such funds, Universal K-9 had to first obtain certification from the Texas Veterans Commission (TVC), the state agency designated by the VA to approve educational institutions and progra