Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Weev Opinion

Weev Opinion

Ratings: (0)|Views: 555 |Likes:
Published by LeakSourceInfo





More info:

Published by: LeakSourceInfo on Apr 12, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT  _____________  No. 13-1816  _____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ANDREW AUERNHEIMER, a/k/a Weev a/k/a Weelos a/k/a Escher ANDREW AUERNHEIMER, Appellant On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (No. 2:11-cr-00470-001) District Judge: Hon. Susan D. Wigenton Argued: March 19, 2014 Before: CHAGARES, GREENAWAY, JR., and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges. (Filed: April 11, 2014)  ____________ OPINION  ____________ Tor B. Ekeland, Esq. Mark H. Jaffe, Esq. Tor Ekeland, P.C. 155 Water Street. Sixth Floor, Suite Two Brooklyn, NY 11201
Case: 13-1816 Document: 003111586090 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/11/2014
 2 Orin S. Kerr, Esq. [ARGUED] George Washington University 2000 H Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20052 Marcia C. Hofmann, Esq. 25 Taylor Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Hanni M. Fakhoury, Esq. Electronic Frontier Foundation 815 Eddy Street San Francisco, CA 94109 Attorneys for Appellant Paul J. Fishman, Esq. Glenn J. Moramarco, Esq. [ARGUED] Office of United States Attorney Camden Federal Building & Courthouse 401 Market Street Camden, NJ 08101 Mark E. Coyne, Esq. Office of United States Attorney 970 Broad Street  Newark, NJ 07102 Attorneys for Appellee Christopher C. Walsh, Esq. Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic 23 Everett Street Second Floor Cambridge, MA 02138 Alexander C. Muentz, Esq. Temple University Department of Criminal Justice 1115 Pollett Walk Philadelphia, PA 19122
Case: 13-1816 Document: 003111586090 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/11/2014
 3 Jennifer S. Granick, Esq. Stanford Law School Center for Internet & Society 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA 94305 Steven P. Ragland, Esq. Keker & Van Nest 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Attorneys for Amicus Appellants CHAGARES, Circuit Judge. This case calls upon us to determine whether venue for
Andrew Auernheimer’s prosecution for conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. §
1030, and identity fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7) was  proper in the District of New Jersey. Venue in criminal cases
is more than a technicality; it involves “matters that touch
 closely the fair administration of criminal justice and public confidence in it
United States v. Johnson, 323 U.S. 273, 276 (1944). This is especially true of computer crimes in the era of mass interconnectivity. Because we conclude that venue did not lie in New Jersey, we will reverse the District Court
’s venue determination
vacate Auernheimer’s
conviction. I. A. The relevant facts are fairly simple and not in dispute. Apple, Inc. introduced the first iPad, a tablet computer, in 2010. Customers who purchased the version that had the capability to send and receive data over cellular networks (commonly referred to a
s “3G”) had to purchase a data
contract from AT&T,
Inc. (“AT&T”),
 which at the time was the exclusive provider of data services for this version of the iPad. Customers registered their accounts with AT&T over the Internet on a website that AT&T controlled. In the registration process, customers were assigned a user identifier
Case: 13-1816 Document: 003111586090 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/11/2014

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->