Case: United States v. Andrew Auernheimer
Argument: Mar 13, 2014 (Aud.)
Issues: (1) Did Auernheimer and Spitler access a computer “without authorization” under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C)?
(2) If Auernheimer was properly convicted of a conspiracy to violate the CFAA, was that conspiracy a misdemeanor or a felony?
(3) Did Auernheimer violate the identity theft statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7)?
(4) Was venue proper in the District of New Jersey?
(5) Do AT&T’s costs in mailing a letter to its customers support an eight-level upward adjustment under the United States Sentencing Guidelines?
It is important to note that the Third Circuit did not rule on the CFAA in this case. Venue is a threshold issue; by deciding the venue was improper, the District Court never had jurisdiction to hear the case. Venue is a procedural matter that doesn't go to the substance of the underlying charges. That is why it is possible that Weev could likely be charged again without violating double jeopardy, see i.e., Haney v. Burgess, 799 F.2d 661 (11th Cir. 1986) (retrial of a defendant whose conviction was reversed because of improper venue does not violate double jeopardy).