Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Nosal

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

August 26, 2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
AVID NOSAL, Defendant-Appellant.

         On Appeal From The United States District Court for the Northern District of California Case No. 3:08-cr-00237-EMC-1 Hon. Edward M. Chen, District Court Judge

          Jamie L. Williams Cindy Cohn Andrew Crocker Stephanie Lacambra ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION Esha Bhandari Rachel Goodman AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION Counsel for Amici Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union, and American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.

          AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AND AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

          Jamie L. Williams Judge

         DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS AND OTHER ENTITIES WITH A DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST IN LITIGATION

         Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Amici Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union, and American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California state that they do not have parent corporations, and that no publicly held corporation owns 10 percent or more of their stock.

         TABLE OF CONTENTS

         CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT..........................................................i

         TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................ii

         TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................................iii

         STATEMENT OF INTEREST.................................................................................1

         INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................2

         ARGUMENT............................................................................................................3

         I. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT EN BANC REVIEW TO SECURE UNIFORMITY OF THE COURT'S DECISIONS.........................................3

         A. The Panel's Decision Conflicts With Brekka and Nosal I....................3

         B. The Panel's Decision Conflicts With Power Ventures.........................9

         II. EN BANC REVIEW IS NECESSARY BECAUSE OF THE FAR-REACHING CONSEQUENCES OF THE PANEL'S DECISION..............12

         A. The Panel's Interpretation of the CFAA Renders the Statute Unconstitutionally Vague...................................................................12

         B. The Panel's Decision Threatens to Chill Valuable Research and Journalism, Including Audit Testing for Online Discrimination....................................................................................15

         CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................18

         TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

         Cases

         Connally v. Gen. Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926)...........................................................................................12

         EF Cultural Travel BV v. Explorica, Inc., 274 F.3d 577 (1st Cir. 2001)...................................5

         Facebook v. Power Ventures, No. 13-17102, 2016 WL 3741956 (9th Cir. July 12, 2016).........................10, 18

         Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972)...........................................................................................12

         Havens Realty Corp v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982)...........................................................................................16

         Int 'l Airport Ctrs. v. Citrin, 440 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2006)................................................................................5

         Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983)...........................................................................................12

         LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2009)....................................................................passim

         Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 551 U.S. 224 (2007)..........................................4

         Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010)...........................................................................................12

         United States v. John, 597 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2010)................................................................................5

         United States v. Kozminski,487 U.S. 931 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.