United States v. Schuster

Rugved MahamuniCase Summary

Appeal against the fine imposed by the trial court in a case involving unauthorised access and damage to a protected computer

United States v. Schuster
467 F.3d 614
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Case Number 05-4244
Before Circuit Judge Bauer, Circuit Judge Easterbrook, and Circuit Judge Rovner
Decided on October 27, 2006

Relevancy of the Case: Appeal against the fine imposed by the trial court in a case involving unauthorised access and damage to a protected computer

Statutes and Provisions Involved

  • The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030

Relevant Facts of the Case

  • The defendant was an employee of Alpha Computer Services. Alpha provided computer technical support to Central Wisconsin Wireless Internet Service (CWWIS). He was also a paying customer of CWWIS.
  • When he refused to provide technical support to a CWWIS client, Alpha fired him from his job.
  • Using his home network, he accesses the CWWIS network using the information of various CWWIS customers.
  • As a result, he disrupted the wireless internet connection, adversely affecting their productivity.
  • He pleaded guilty before the trial court. The court sentenced him to 15 months imprisonment and a fine.
  • He has appealed the trial court’s order, claiming that the court erred in calculating the fine of $19,060.

Prominent Arguments by the Counsels

  • The plaintiff’s counsel argued that the fine should be below $10,000. This results in a level 12 offence and 10 to 16 months imprisonment. The counsel specifically stated that the fine should be $13,046 as the prosecution failed to provide a preponderance of evidence to show how one of the affected customers lost $6,014.
  • The respondent’s counsel argued that the defendant’s interference resulted in a continuous denial of service attack throughout the summer. The defendant was caught using the MAC addresses of various customers of CWWIS.

Opinion of the Bench

  • The District Court imposed the lowest possible sentence, both for the offence and imprisonment. There is no substantial evidence supporting the defendant’s argument to lower the fine and offence level.

Final Decision

  • The court rejected the appeal.