x 477 (6th Cir. 2012) 19 United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995) 21 United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2008) 7 United States v. Business of Custer Battlefield Museum and Store, 658 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2011) 14 United States v. Cohen, 18-cr-602 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7,2019) 13 United States v. El-Sayegh, 131 F.3d 158 (D.C. Cir. 1997) 15 - IV Case 1:17-cr-00034-JRH-BKE Document 334 Filed 03/07/19 Page 5 of 32 United States v. Gonzales, 150 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir. 1998) 15 United States v. Kotty 380 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (C.D. Cal. 2004), affd on other grounds, 135 Fed. App'x 69 (9th Cir. 2005) 11 United States v. Loughner, 769 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (D. Ariz. 2011) 11 United States V. Ochoa-Vasquez, 428 F.3d 1015 (11th Cir. 2005) 10 United States v. Shenberg, 791 F. Supp. 292 (S.D. Fla. 1991) 12 United States V. Valenti, 987 F.2d 708 (11th Cir. 1993) 9,10,19, 20 United States v. Winner, No. l:17-cr-34 (JRH) (BKE) (S.D. Ga. Aug. 23,2018), ECF No. 324 2, 3, 4 Federal Statutes 18U.S.C 1 18 U.S.C.§ 793(e) 2 18U.S.C. §§ 2701-2712 1 18 U.S.C. § 2703 (a), (b)(1), (c)(l)-(2) 5 18 U.S.C.§ 2703(d) passim 18 use. §2702(d), 13-mc-460 8 18 U.S.C. § 2703 of the Stored Communications Act 5 18 U.S.C. §§3121-3127 1,5 18 U.S.C. §3123(a)(1) 15,16,18 Case 1:17-cr-00034-JRH-BKE Document 334 Filed 03/07/19 Page 6 of 32 Espionage Act ^ Pen Register Act ^ Pen Register and Trap and Trace Devices Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ^ SCA passim Stored Communications Act ^ Rules Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 15 Regulations 28 C.F.R. §50.10 12 Order Granting Mot. to Unseal, Winner 3 Constitutional Provisions First Amendment passim Fourth Amendment 11 Other Authorities Amanda Holpuch, Reality Winner: NSA contractor jailed for five years over classified report leak, Guardian, Aug. 23,2018, https://perma.cc/MA2N- 5VFK: 4 Ann E. Marimow, Justice Department's scrutiny ofFox News reporter James Rosen in leak case draws fire, Wash. Post, May 20,2013 11 Billy Perrigo, Presi

It is a federal crime to: * cross state lines to violate this order or to stalk, harass or commit domestic violence against an intimate partner or family member, * buy, possess or transfer a handgun, rifle, shotgun or other firearm or ammunition while this Order remains in effect (Note: there is a limited exception for military or law enforcement officers but only while they are on duty); and * buy, possess or transfer a handgun, rifle, shotgun or other firearm or ammunition after a conviction of a domestic violence-related crime involving the use or attempted use of physical force or a deadly weapon against an intimate partner or family member, even after this Order has expired. (18 U.S.C. 1 -922(gX8), 922(g)(9), 2261, 2261A, 2262). (Defendant's signature) A-P-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JANE DOE et al., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:07cv2787 JUDGE DAN A. POLSTER Plaintiffs ) ) ) ) Motion for Attorney’s Fee’s and Costs ) vs. ) ) DEAN BOLAND ) ) Defendant ) Now come the Plaintiffs pursuant to F.R.C.P. 54(d)1 and move this court for an award of attorney’s fees and costs. This motion is brought pursuant to 18 USC § 22552 and 18 USC § 1 (d) COSTS; ATTORNEY'S FEES. (1) Costs Other Than Attorney's Fees.

[Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S.] at 242. . . . The law expressly covers such images, 18 U.S.C. 1 2256(8)(C), and the reality that Boland himself did not “use” real children to product the images makes no difference, see id. § 2252A(c). . . .Once Boland modified the images of the minors, he crossed the line between possessing lawful images and violating the statute.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants may be held liable for their breaches of these Michigan statutes under the federal RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. 1964(1) (creating civil action for substantial RICO violations). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ conduct violated 18 U.S.C. 1 Because this is a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), Coke takes Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, as it must. By reciting the allegations above, Coke does not mean to indicate that it accepts any of them as true.

However, such a course of action would have posed a substantial risk of violating the prohibition on tying under the Sherman Act § 1. 18 U.S.C. § 1. A tying arrangement is “an agreement by a party to sell one product [the tying product] but only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different (or tied) product.”

(U) For example, the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”) provides that a telecommunication carrier may divulge customer records “to a governmental entity, if the provider, in good faith, reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger or death or serious physical injury to any person justifies disclosure of the information.” 18 U.S.C. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 24 (U) To the extent applicable, there is a similar exception to the disclosure of the content of communications under 18 U.S.C. § 2702(b)(8). See Master Verizon Compl.

THE EXCHANGORS ARE NOT “VICTIMS” The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A et seq., requires restitution in the case of conviction for certain federal crimes, including mail and wire fraud. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii). The MVRA defines “victim” as “a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of an offense . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 1 Case 1:04-cr-10029-GAO Document 85 Filed 06/23/2005 Page 1 of 3 3663A(a)(2) (emphasis added). Because there can be no “offense” unless and until there has been a conviction, there also can be no “victim” unless and until there has been a conviction.