USA v. Andrew Auernheimer
Filing
12
ECF FILER: UNOPPOSED Motion filed by Appellant Andrew Auernheimer for Extension of Time to file Brief & Appendix until/for 56 days up to and including 7/1/13. Certificate of Service dated 04/23/2013. (TBE)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No.13-1816
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff- Appellee,
v.
APPELLANT’S
UNOPPOSED
MOTION
FOR
EXTENSION
OF
BRIEFING
SCHEDULE
ANDREW AUERNHEIMER,
Defendant- Appellant.
Appellant
Andrew
Auernheimer,
by
and
through
his
undersigned
counsel,
hereby
moves
this
Honorable
Court
to
grant
a
fifty-‐six
(56)
day
extension
of
time
to
file
his
Brief
and
Joint
Appendix,
up
to
and
including
July
1,
2013.
In
support
of
this
motion
Appellant
states
as
follows:
1.
Appellant’s
Brief
and
Joint
Appendix
are
currently
due
on
or
before
May
6,
2013.
2.
On
November
20,
2012,
a
jury
sitting
in
the
Federal
District
Court
for
the
District
of
New
Jersey
found
Appellant
guilty
of
one
count
of
conspiracy
under
18
U.S.C.
§
371
to
gain
unauthorized
access
to
a
protected
computer
in
violation
of
the
Computer
Fraud
and
Abuse
Act
(the
“CFAA”),
18
U.S.C.
§
1030(a)(2)(c),
and
one
count
of
knowing
transfer,
possession,
or
use
of
a
means
of
identification
in
connection
with
a
violation
of
federal
law
in
violation
of
18
U.S.C.
§
1028(a)(7).
3.
On
March
18,
2013,
the
Honorable
Susan
D.
Wigenton
sentenced
Appellant
to
41
months
on
each
count,
to
run
concurrently,
as
well
as
three
years
of
supervised
release
with
special
terms,
and
ordered
him
to
pay
restitution
in
the
amount
of
$73,167.00.
4.
On
March
21,
2013,
a
timely
Notice
of
Appeal
was
filed.
5.
This
appeal
raises
complex
issues
of
constitutional
and
statutory
interpretation
in
relation
to
the
CFAA
that
are
matters
of
first
impression
in
the
Third
Circuit.
These
issues
are
of
great
public
concern,
as
evidenced
by
the
considerable
media
attention
this
case
has
received.
The
extension
will
provide
sufficient
time
to
ensure
that
Appellant’s
Brief
is
thorough.
6.
Appellant
is
currently
being
held
at
the
United
States
Penitentiary-‐
Canaan,
in
Waymart,
Pennsylvania.
He
is
hundreds
of
miles
away
from
any
of
his
counsel.
Because
Appellant’s
phone
and
email
privileges
are
currently
suspended,
counsel
faces
significant
delays
in
communicating
with
Appellant
about
his
appeal.
The
requested
extension
should
allow
for
sufficient
time
to
allow
for
proper
communication
between
Appellant
and
his
counsel.
7.
Because
the
Appellant
is
presently
incarcerated,
Appellee
would
not
be
prejudiced
by
the
granting
of
the
requested
relief
and
does
not
oppose
the
requested
extension.
8.
Undersigned
counsel
is
representing
Appellant
along
with
pro
bono
co-‐counsel
who
have
pre-‐existing
litigation,
transactional,
and
academic
deadlines
that
conflict
with
the
current
briefing
schedule.
9.
Appellant
has
made
no
prior
requests
for
an
extension.
10.
The
Appellee
consents
to
this
motion.
Accordingly,
for
the
reasons
stated
above,
Appellant
respectfully
requests
a
fifty-‐six
(56)
day
extension
to
file
the
opening
Brief
and
Joint
Appendix,
up
to
and
including
July
1,
2013.
Respectfully
submitted,
/s/
Tor
Ekeland
Tor
Ekeland
Tor
Ekeland
P.C.
155
Water
Street
Brooklyn,
NY
11201
718
285
9343
718
504
5417
fax
tor@torekeland.com
CERTIFICATE
OF
SERVICE
I
certify
that
on
April
23,
2013,
the
foregoing
documents
were
filed
with
the
CM/ECF
system.
The
following
counsel
of
record
are
registered
filing
users
and
will
be
served
electronically
by
the
CM/ECF
Notice
of
Docket
Activity,
pursuant
to
Local
Appellate
Rule
Misc.
113.4(a).
Mark
E.
Coyne,
Esq.
Office
of
the
United
States
Attorney
970
Broad
Street
Room
700
Newark,
NJ
07102
Hanni
Fakhoury,
Esq.
Marcia
C.
Hoffman,
Esq.
Electronic
Frontier
Foundation
815
Eddy
Street
San
Francisco,
CA
94109
/s/
Tor
Ekeland
Tor
Ekeland
Tor
Ekeland
P.C.
155
Water
Street
Brooklyn,
NY
11201
718
285
9343
718
504
5417
fax
tor@torekeland.com
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?