### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T A ugus t 30, 2004 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 03- 11235

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 2 - 6 1 5 9 6 - CV - W PD A T & T B R O A D B A N D , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s T E C H C O M M U N I C A T I O N S , I N C ., a n a c tiv e F lo r id a c o rp o r a tio n , R I C H A R D M A R M E R , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts , M R. BE VERAGE, DELI & M I DD LE E A S T E RN D E L I G H T S , I N C . , a n a c tiv e F lo r id a c o rp o r a tio n , D e f e n d a n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 30, 2004)Honora ble David D. D owd, Jr., United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Ohio, sitti ngby

designation. Mr . B e verag e , D e li &MiddleEa stern De lights , Inc . w a s dismiss e d a s a de fendant. 1 AT& T reque sted, inter alia, a decla ration proc laiming Ma

rmer w as violating47 U.S.C. § 2 553(a) (1), a

n injunction prohibiti ngMarmer from distributing pirate ca ble dec oders, damag es 2 B ef ore B IR C H and W IL S O N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and D O W D , D i stri ctJudg e. * B IR C H , C i rc ui tJudg e: T hi s appe a l pr e s e nt s a n i s s ue of f i r s ti m pr e s s i on i n thi s c i r c ui t : w he the rthe C abl e C om m un i ca t i on s P ol i cy A ct(“ C C P A ”) , 47 U . S . C . § 5 53 (c )( 2)(A ) ( 20 01 ), e m pow e r s a di s tr i c tc our tt o i s s ue a n e x pa r t e or de ra uthor i z i ng a f r e e z e of a s s e t s or a s ea rc h and se i zure of prop erty bel on gi ng t o an al l eged vi ol at or of the A ct . A ft er di sc ov er i ng thatdefe nd ant s- appel l ant s R i char d M arm erand h i s c om pany, T ec h 1 C o m m u n ic a tio n s , I n c . ( c o lle c tiv e ly , “M a r m e r ” ) , w e r e s e llin g “p ir a te ” c ab le de s c r a m bl e r s i n vi ol a t i on of § 553( a ) ( 1) , pl a i nt i f

f - appe l l e e A T & T B r oa dba nd ( “ A T & T ” ) f

i l e d s ui ta ga i ns tM a r m e ra nd s oughta n e x pa r t e or de rf r e e z i ng M a r m e r ' s a s s e t s a nd a l l ow i ng A T & T t o s e i z e pr ope r ty r e l a t e d t o i t s c l a i m s . T he d is tr ic t c o u r t g r a n te d th e o r d e ra n d w e A F F I R M . I . B AC KG RO UN D A T & T c o n te n d s th a t M a r m e ris in v o lv e d in th e s a le o f ille g a l c ab le de s c r a m bl i ng de vi c e s tha ta l l ow buy e r s t o r e c e i ve A T & T ' s c abl e t e l e vi s i on prog ra m m i ng for f

re e. A T & T fi l ed sui t agai nstM arm eral l egi ng vi ol at i on of § 2(statutory

or ac tual), an accounting , and the imposition of a construc tive trust. R1-1 at 10-11. AT& T also re quested e xpedited discovery, an ac counting , and a g eneral tempora ry 3 restraining order, a

nd preliminary

injunction. See R1-5. Only the asset f

ree ze and the seizure order arebefore us on appe al. 3 55 3(a) (1) of the C C P A , and, on the sa m e day , fi l ed an ex part e m ot i on for, i nt er a l i a , a n a s s e tf

r e e z e a n d s e i z u r e o f

Ma r m e r ' s b u s i n e s s r e c o r d s . S e e R 1 - 1 , 5 . As 3 e v i d e n c e o f

M a r m e r ' s i l l e g a l a c t i v i ty , AT &T s u b m i tt e d th e a f f i d a v i t s o f two AT &T s e c ur i ty pe r s onne l : ( 1) C r a i g F r appi e r , A T & T ' s M a na ge rof S e c ur i ty a nd ( 2) Je ff re y M ar i n, an A T & T S ec uri ty I nv es t i gat or. F rapp i er ' s a ff

i davi tdet ai l ed A T & T ' s l ostre venu e due t o the sa l e of i l l egal c ab le d e s c r a m b le r s . S p e c if ic a lly , F r ap p ie re x p la in e d th a t A T & T p r o v id e s its s u b s c r i b e r s wi th a “ d e c o d e r ” th a tu n s c r a m b l e s i t s t e l e v i s i o n s i g n a l s s o th a tAT &T c abl e s ubs c r i be r s c a n r e c e i ve A T & T ' s t e l e vi s i on s i gna l s . R 1- 11 a t¶ 8. T he d e c o d e r s a r e p r o g r a m m e d to a u th o r iz e v ie w in g o f p u r c h a s e d s e r v ic e s o n ly . “P ir a te ” d e c o d e r s , o rd e s c r a m b le r s , a llo w th e p o s s e s s o rto r e c e iv e a ll o f A T & T 's s c r a m b le d p r o g r a m m in g w ith o u t p a y m e n t. I d . ¶ 1 1 . M ar i n' s a ff

i davi ti nd i ca t ed thatM arm er ' s w ebsi t e,

“ c abl e tvde s c r a m bl e r s . ne t , ” of f e r e d f ors a l e s e ve r a l i l l e ga l c abl e de s c r a m bl i ng d e v ic e s , in c lu d in g “T h e M a tr ix ” a n d th e “C o o lb o x A v e n g e rX .” R 1 - 1 0 a t ¶ 2 . M a r i n, pos i ng a s a n or di na ry c us t om e r , or de r e d “ T he M a tr i x. ” T he pa c ka ge a rr iv e d , c a rry in g a r e tu rn a d d r e s s b e lo n g in g to a M a il B o x e s , E tc . s to r e . M a r in4

c o n n e c te d “T h e M a tr ix ” a n d f o u n d th a t it w a s c ap ab le o f r e c e iv in g a ll o f

A T & T 's s c r a m b le d p r e m iu m a n d p a y - p e r - v ie w s e r v ic e s in a c e r ta in v ie w in g a r e a . A ft erse ar chi ng throu gh pu bl i c r ec ords, M ar i n and F rapp i erdi sc ov er ed M a r m e r 's h o m e a d d r e s s — 2 1 4 0 7 P a g o s a C o u r t— a n d b e g a n o b s e r v in g a c tiv ity out s i de hi s hom e . M a r i n f ol l ow e d M a r m e rf

r om the P a gos a C our ta ddr e s s t o a w ar ehou se -type f

ac i l i ty a t96 0 S ou th D ee rf i el d A venu e. M ar i n o bserved M arm er

“ ca rryi ng a bl ac k b ag consi st entw i th the si ze and shape of [a] l apt op com pu t er . ” Id. ¶ 1 1. H e a l so ob se rved M arm erdri ve t o the M ai l B ox es , E t c. l ocat i on l i st ed as the r e turn a ddr e s s f

or“ T he M a tr i x, ” w he r e M a r m e rr e tr i e ve d pa c ka ge s “ c ons i s t e nt w i th the si ze and shape of the i l l egal M atri x d es cr am bl erthat[M ar i n] pu rc hase d f r om [ M a r m e r ] . ” I d. ¶ 12. M a r m e rthe n tr a ve l e d f r om the M a i l B oxe s , E t c . t o the D ee rf i el d A venu e w ar ehou se , w here he un l oaded t he packages a nd then l oaded a d d itio n a l p a c k a g e s r e tr ie v e d f r o m th e w a r e h o u s e . A f te rM a r m e rd e p a r te d , M a r in s e a r c he d a ga rba ge dum ps t e rne a rthe w a r e hous e a nd f ound s e ve r a l i t e m s tha the concl ud ed w er e “ consi st entw i th the op er at i on of an i l l egal desc ra m bl ersa l es c o m p a n y .” I d . ¶ 1 4 . T h is s u it a n d th e o r d e r s a t is s u e f o llo w e d . T he di stri ctcourti ni t i al l y deni ed A T & T ' s e x p art e r equestfor a n ass etfr ee ze p en d i n g a sh o w i n g o f th e sp eci fi c asset s t o b e fro zen . T h e d i stri ctco u rtal so in itia lly d e n ie d A T & T 's e x p a r te r e q u e s t to s e iz e c e r ta in o f M a r m e r 's p r o p e r tyTh edis tric t c ourt alsodenie d A T& T' s mo tio n f or a se arch a nd se izureorder b e c a

us e 4 “the f acts re lied upon by

[AT&T] areover thirty

days old[ .]” R1-13 at 4. This aspect of the district court' s decision is not beforeus. 5 be c a us e A T & T “ f

a i l e d t o s how a l i ke l i hood tha te vi de nc e w i l l be de s tr oy e d or un avai l abl e i f s uch an o rderi s notgrant ed. ” R 1-13 at4. H ow ever , the di stri ct 4 c o u r t g r a n te d A T & T 's r e q u e s t f o ra n in ju n c tio n a n d e n

jo in e d M a r m e rf

r o m : the sa l e, tra nsfe r, advert i se m ent. . . , m ov em entand/ or offe r f or sa l e, m odi f i c a t i on, m a nuf

a c tur e , s t or a ge a nd di s tr i but i on of c abl e t e l e vi s i on de c odi ng de vi c e s a nd r e l a t e d e qui pm e nta nd/ orthe r e nde r i ng of a ny a s s is ta n c e w h a ts o e v e rin th e s a le , tr a n s f e r , a d v e r tis e m e n t, m o v e m e n t, m o d if ic a tio n , m a n u f

a c tu r e , s to r a g e o rd is tr ib u tio n o f s u c h e q u ip m e n t .

. . [ a nd] f r om de s tr oy i ng, a l t e r i ng, r e m ovi ng ors e c r e t i ng a ny of [ M a r m e r ' s ] books a nd r e c or ds . . . w hi c h c ont a i n i nf or m a t i on w ha t s oe ve rc onc e rni ng the bus i ne s s orf i na nc e s of

[ M a r m e r ] or othe rw i s e r e f

l e c ttr a ns a c t i ons of

a ny ki nd i nvol vi ng D e c odi ng D e v ic e s . . . . I d . a t 2 - 3 . T w o d a y s la te r , o n 1 5 N o v e m b e r2 0 0 2 , A T & T f ile d a n e m e r g e n c y m o tio n to supp l em entthe re cord and m od i fy the di stri ctcourt ' s i ni t i al deni al of an as se t f r e e z e a nd s e i z ur e of

pr ope r ty . A T & T s ubm i tt e d a s uppl e m e nt a l a f f i da vi tf r om F rapp i er , and t he af

fi davi tof D ani el L ef

ko w i t z, an att orney w ho re pres ent ed anot her c abl e c om pany i n an i dent i ca l , pri or l i t i gat i on . F rapp i er ' s s up pl em ent al a f f i da vi ts t a t e d tha tM a r m e rw a s c utt i ng of f s uppl i e r s ' s hi ppi ng l abe l s a nd s hr e ddi ng doc um e nt s . R 1- 14, E x. B a t¶¶ 6, 9, 10, 14. “ [ B ] a s e d on [ hi s ] e xt e ns i ve e x p e r ie n c e ,” F r ap p ie rs ta te d h is o p in io n th a t, “a b s e n t a s e iz u r e , [ M a r m e ris ] lik e ly6

t o . . . destroy e vi dence. ” I d. ¶ 7 . L ef ko w i t z' s a ff

i davi ti dent i fi ed the need for ex p a r te s e iz u r e s in c ab le p ir a c y c a s e s b a s e d o n n u m e r o u s e x a m p le s o f d e f e n d a n ts in othe rc a s e s w ho de s tr oy e d ortr a ns f e rr e d s a l e s r e c or ds , pi r a t e de c ode r s , a nd b u s in e s s a s s e ts o n c e p r o v id e d w ith n o tic e o f le g a l a c tio n . R 1 - 1 4 , E x . C a t 3 - 6 . B a s e d on thi s e vi de nc e , the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d A T & T ' s e m e r ge nc y m ot i on f ora n e x pa r t e a s s e tf

r e e z e a nd s e i z ur e of

pr ope r ty on 18 N ove m be r2002. T he di stri ctcourtst at ed thatA T & T , w i th the as si st ance of U ni t ed S t at es F eder al M a r s ha l s , w a s pe r m i tt e d t o s e a r c h M a r m e r ' s P a gos a C our ta nd D e e r f i e l d A ve nue a ddr e s s e s a nd se i ze [a nd re m ov e] any a nd al l corr es po nd ence w i th cust om er s, sa l es i nv oi ce s, pu rc hase orders , re turn form s, re ce i pt s, bank re cords, sa fe d ep o si tb o x reco rd s, p ro ceed s o f sal es, i n su ran ce p o l i ci es, safes, s h ip p in g lab e ls a n d ta x r e tu rn s o f o th e rb u s in e s s r e c o r d s , in c lu d in g a ll c o m p u te rte r m in a ls , h a r d d r iv e s , s e r v e r s , d is k s a n d tap e s in th e ir pos s e s s i on, w hi c h pl a i nt i f f r e a s onabl y be l i e ve s c ont a i n ori ndi c a t e the na m e s ora ddr e s s e s of

di s tr i but or s , s uppl i e r s , m a nuf a c tur e r s , a nd/ or pu rc hase rs of D ec od i ng D evi ce s or a ny re l at ed equi pm ent , or w hi ch c ont a i n, i ndi c a t e orothe rw i s e r e f l e c torpe r t a i n t o a ny tr a ns a c t i ons of a ny ki nd i nvol vi ng D e c odi ng D e vi c e s orothe rbus i ne s s a c t i vi t i e s , a nd a ny a nd a l l D e c odi ng D e vi c e s , a nd the i l l i c i tpr oc e e ds of the s a l e s of su ch D eco d i n g D ev i ces. R 1- 16 a t2. M a r m e rw a s a l s o “ r e s tr a i ne d f r om tr a ns f

e rr i ng, r e m ovi ng, e nc um be r i ng orpe r m i tt i ng the w i thdr a w a l of a ny a s s e t s of

pr ope r ty . . . r e a l or pers on al , t angi bl e or i nt angi bl e. ” I d. at1-2. In addi t i on , the di stri ctcourtordered7

M a r m e rt o “ s how c a us e . . . w hy thi s T e m por a ry R e s tr a i ni ng O r de rs houl d notbe c o n f ir m e d a n d a P r e lim in a ry I n ju n c tio n e n te r e d .” I d . a t 4 - 5 . O n 25 N ove m be r2002, the da y be f or e the s c he dul e d “ s how c a us e ” he a r i ng, A T & T a n d M a r m e rf

ile d a “P r e lim in a ry I n

ju n c tio n a n d A g r e e d O r d e r ,” w h e r e in M a r m e rc ons e nt e d t o be “ pe r m a ne nt l y e nj oi ne d a nd r e s tr a i ne d” f r om pa r t i c i pa t i on in th e d is tr ib u tio n o f

c ab le d e s c r a m b le r s . R 1 - 2 3 a t 1 . M a r m e ra ls o c o n s e n te d to th e c o n tin u a tio n o f

th e a s s e t f

r e e z e , w ith th e s tip u la tio n th a t h e c o u ld c h a lle n g e its i m po si t i on ata l at erdat e. R 1-22 atun nu m b. 2-3. O n 2 0 D ec em ber 200 2, M arm er f i l e d a “ M o t i o n t o D i s s o l v e A s s e tFr e e z e ” a n d a “ M o t i o n f o rRe tu rn o f

a l l I t e ms S e iz e d .” R 2 - 3 7 , 4 0 . A T & T r e s p o n d e d to M a r m e r 's m o tio n s w ith a n o th e ra f f id a v it o f M a r in st at i ng that , du ri ng the se ar ch of M arm er ' s r es i dence, A T & T di sc ov er ed se vera l f a ke dr i ve r ' s l i c e ns e s be a r i ng M a r m e r ' s phot ogr aph butnothi s l e ga l na m e . R 3- 68 at¶ 7 . A T & T al so se i ze d $ 97 , 90 0 i n cas h l ocat ed “ i n a bri ef ca se conceal ed un der a st ai rw el l behi nd a w at erheat er . ” I d. ¶ 1 2. In addi t i on , se i ze d t ax re turns i nd i ca t ed thatM arm erse tup a new corporat e i dent i ty t o sel l i l l egal cabl e des cr am bl er s e very tw e l ve m onths on a ve r a ge . I d. ¶¶ 4, 8. T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed M arm er ' s m ot i on s. R egar di ng the prop erty s ei zure , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f

o u n d th a t p r o b ab le c a u s e ju s tif ie d th e s e a r c h o f

M a r m e r 'sUnited States v. L eon, 468 U.S. 897, 919-21, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 3418-19 (1984). 5 In this a pp e al, M arm e r challeng e s o nly these arch o f his re side nc e , n ot t hese arch o f his 6 warehouse. AT& T presented evidenc e, par tially included in Marin' s aff

idavit, “that Marmer has now 7 been a rre sted for identity

theft, that his corporations have be en involved with piratingfor many ye arsand that th e reis n o o ther f

ina nc ial ba sis fo r mill ion s o f doll arsc oll e c te d b y the se corporations other than c able piracy, also the cor porations havebeen ste alth-like.” R3-91 at 1. 8 w a r e hous e f

a c i l i ty a nd tha tthe L e on good f a i th e xc e pt i on appl i e d t o the s e a r c h of 5 M arm er ' s r es i dence. R 3-85 at1-2. R egar di ng the as se tfr ee ze , the di stri ctcourt 6 c o n c lu d e d th a t, b a s e d o n th e in f o r m a tio n c o n ta in e d in M a r in 's s e c o n d a f f id a v it, 7 M a r m e r“s h o u ld n o t b e a llo w e d to u s e [ h is ] r e m a in in g a s s e ts to f u r th e ro th e rc ab le the f te nt e rpr i s e s . ” R 3- 91 a t1. T he di s tr i c tc our ta l s o not e d tha t“ [ g] i ve n the s how i ng of

a l i ke l i hood tha ta s s e t s unf r oz e n w oul d notbe a va i l abl e t o s a t i s f y a ny dam age a w ar d, un fr ee zi ng thi s a spec tof the N ov em ber 18t h O rderi s pre m ature a t th is tim e .” I d . a t 2 . M a r m e rn o w ap p e a ls . I I . DI S CUS S I ON W e f i rs taddres s w hether w e have j uri sdi ct i on ov erM arm er ' s app ea l . A ft er concl ud i ng i n the af

fi rm at i ve, w e s t at e the prop erst andard of revi ew . W e then consi der the di stri ctcourt ' s i m po si t i on of (a nd re fusa l t o d i ss ol ve) the as se tfr ee ze , a nd, f i na l l y , w e r e vi e w the or de rpe r m i tt i ng s e a r c h a nd s e i z ur e of pr ope r ty f

r om M a r m e r 's r e s id e n c e ( a n d r e f u s a l to r e tu rn th e s e iz e d p r o p e r ty ) . A . J ur i s di c t i on9

B e f or e w e a ddr e s s the m e r i t s of M a r m e r ' s appe a l , w e m us tf i r s tde t e r m i ne w hether w e have j uri sdi ct i on t o h ea r hi s c l ai m s. W hi l e the grantof a m ot i on for a prel i m i nary i nj un ct i on i s app ea l abl e, the grantof a m ot i on for at em po ra ry r e s tr a i ni ng or de r( “ T R O ” ) i s not . 28 U . S . C . § 1292( a ) ( 1) ; F e rna nde z - R oque v. S m ith , 6 7 1 F .2 d 4 2 6 , 4 2 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 2 ) . M a r m e ra r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t's de ni a l of hi s m ot i ons t o di s s ol ve the a s s e tf r e e z e a nd r e turn s e i z e d pr ope r ty w a s the d e n ia l o f a r e q u e s t f

o rm o d if ic a tio n o f

a p r e lim in a ry in

ju n c tio n , a n d , th e r e f

o r e , is im m e d ia te ly ap p e a lab le p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) . W e a g r e e . G e ne r a l l y , ourj ur i s di c t i on i s l i m i t e d t o f i na l or de r s a nd j udgm e nt s of the di s tr i c tc our t . 28 U . S . C . § 1291. “ A f i na l de c i s i on i s one w hi c h e nds the l i t i ga t i on on the m er i t s a nd l ea ves not hi ng for the courtt o d o b utexec ut e the j ud gm ent . ” P i tne y B ow e s , I nc . v. M e s tr e , 701 F . 2d 1365, 1368 ( 11th C i r . 1983) ( c i t a t i on om i tt ed). O ne except i on t o thi s gener al rul e perm i t s app ea l s f rom i nt er l ocut ory o r d e r s g r a n t i n g o rd e n y i n g p r e l i mi n a ry a n d p e r ma n e n ti n j u n c t i o n s . Se e 2 8 U . S. C. § 1291( a ) ( 1) ; C abl e H ol di ngs of B a tt l e f i e l d, I nc . v. C ooke , 764 F . 2d 1466, 1470- 71 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) ; s e e a ls o F e d . R . C iv . P . 6 5 ( a ) . S p e c if ic a lly , u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1292( a ) ( 1) , w e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w di s tr i c tc our tor de r s “ gr a nt i ng, c ont i nui ng, m odi f

y i ng, r e f us i ng ordi s s ol vi ng i nj unc t i ons , orr e f us i ng t o di s s ol ve or m o d if y in ju n c tio n s .”10

I n de c i di ng w he the rt o c ha r a c t e r i z e a n or de ra s one gr a nt i ng a T R O ora s one g r a n tin g a p r e lim in a ry in ju n c tio n , th e lab e l p la c e d u p o n th e o r d e ris n o t n e c e s s a r ily di s pos i t i ve of

i t s appe a l abi l i ty . S e e M c D ouga l d v. J e ns on, 786 F . 2d 1465, 1472 ( 11th C i r . 1986) . A n or de rgr a nt i ng a T R O m a y be appe a l abl e a s a n or de rgr a nt i ng a pr e l i m i na ry i nj unc t i on w he n thr e e c ondi t i ons a r e s a t i s f i e d: ( 1) the dur a t i on of

the re l i ef soug htor grant ed excee ds thatal l ow ed by a T R O (t en days ), (2) the no t i ce and h ea ri ng soug htor af forded sugg es tthatthe re l i ef soug htw as a pre l i m i nary i nj un ct i on , and (3) the re qu es t ed re l i ef se eks t o chang e the st atus qu o. C f. i d. at 1 4 7 2 ; F e rn a n d e z - R o q u e , 6 7 1 F .2 d a t 4 2 9 . In thi s c as e, al l three cond i t i on s w er e s at i sf i ed: (1) A T & T re qu es t ed re l i ef thatw ou l d ext end w el l beyond t en days ; (2) A T & T gave no t i ce t o M arm erbefore the e ntry of

the a gr e e d pr e l i m i na ry i nj unc t i on a nd or de r , w hi c h i s e vi de ntby the f a c ttha tthe or de rw a s by c ons e nt ; a nd ( 3) A T & T s oughtt o c ha nge the s t a tus quo b y s ig n if ic a n tly a lte r in g M a r m e r 's s ta te o f a f f a ir s . M o r e o v e r , b o th p a r tie s a g r e e d to the confi rm at i on of the di stri ctcourt ' s 18 N ov em ber 200 2 T R O as a pre l i m i nary i nj un ct i on . R 1-22 atun nu m b. 2. T hu s, w e w i l l construe the di stri ctcourt ' s order s denyi ng M arm er ' s m ot i on s t o d i ss ol ve the as se tfr ee ze and for return o f s ei ze d p r o p e r ty a s o r d e r s d e n y in g r e q u e s ts f o rm o d if ic a tio n o f

ap r e lim in a ry in

ju n c tio n . A s a r e s u lt, w e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to h e a rM a r m e r 's a p p e a l.Ma rm e r alsoargue s th at th ea sset f re e ze v iol ate d o ur

de c isi on in Ros e n v . Ca sc a deInt' l, 8 Inc., 21 F .3d 1520, 1530 (11th Cir. 1994), where westated that “preliminary injunctive relief fre ezing a defendant' s assets in order to establish a fund with which to satisfy a potential j u dgm entfo r m o n ey

d am age s i s s i mp l y

n o tanap p ro p ri at e e x er ci s e o f afe d er al di s tri ctco urt 's authority .” In this case, however, A T& T sought equitable re lief (unlike the plaintiffs in Rosen) and the a sset fre eze was grante d beca use Mar mer “ should not be allowed to use [his] remaining assets to further other c able thef t enterprises.” R3-91 at 1. Thus, the a sset fre eze was issued primarily to deter f uture violations of 47 U.S.C. § 553(a)( 1), despite the district c ourt' s seconda ry state ment t

hat “ [g ]iven th esh ow ingof a like lih oo d th at a ssets unf ro zen wo uld no t beavaila

bleto satisfy any damag e aw ard, unf

ree zing this aspect of

the November 18th Order is premature at this ti me.” Id. at 2. Marmer does not asser

t any argument relating to the ter ms of the asset f

ree ze. In fac t, at 9 oral a rgument, Marmer' s counsel aba ndoned the a

rgument that the asset f

ree ze should not have applied to Marmer' s homestead sinceMarmer sold his homestead in violation of the asset freeze. 11 B . S t andard of R evi ew W e r e v ie w d e n o v o th e le g a l g r o u n d s u p o n w h ic h th e d is tr ic t c o u r t r e lie d to i s s ue i t s or de rpe r m i tt i ng M a r m e r ' s a s s e t s t o be f r oz e n a nd hi s pr ope r ty t o be s e i z e d. T hi s T ha ta nd the O the rG i f ta nd T oba c c o, I nc . v. C obb C ounty , G a . , 285 F .3 d 1 3 1 9 , 1 3 2 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . W e th e n r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u r t's d e c is io n to is s u e th e o r d e rf

o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . I d . C . A ss etF re ez e M a r m e ra r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t's d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to u n f

r e e z e h is as se t s w as i m prop erfor tw o p ri m ary r ea sons: (1) the di stri ctcourtl ac ked 8 s t a tut ory a uthor i ty unde r§ 553( c ) ( 2) ( A ) of the C C P A t o i s s ue the or de r , a nd ( 2) the di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by r e f us i ng t o di s s ol ve the a s s e tf r e e z e a f t e rthe pa r t i e s e nt e r e d a n a gr e e d i nj unc t i on. W e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tha d the 9The Ac t dictates that “theterm ' assist in int erc eptingor re ceiving ' shall include the 10 manufactureor distribution of equipment intended by the manufacturer or distributor . . . for unauthorized rec eption of any communications servic e off ere d over a

cablesystem.” I d. § 55 3( a)( 2) . M arm e r doe s n ot disputethat hi s ac tiv ity satis fi e d this s ub se c tio n a nd , th us , w a s a violation of § 553(a) (1). 12 le g a l a u th o r ity to is s u e th e a s s e t f r e e z e , a n d th a t d e n ia l o f M a r m e r 's m o tio n to d is s o lv e th e o r d e rw a s n o t a n ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n . 1 . S ta tu to ry A u th o r ity T h e C C P A p r o v id e s th a t, “N o p e r s o n s h a ll in te r c e p t o rr e c e iv e o ra s s is t in i n t e r c e p t i n g o rr e c e i v i n g a n y c o mmu n i c a t i o n s s e r v i c e o f f e r e d o v e ra c ab l e s y s t e m, u n le s s s p e c if

ic a lly a u th o r iz e d to d o s o b y a c ab le o p e r a to r .” 4 7 U .S .C . § 10 553( a ) ( 1) . D i s tr i c tc our t s a r e a uthor i z e d t o “ gr a ntt e m por a ry a nd f i na l i nj unc t i ons on s uc h t e r m s a s [ the y ] m a y de e m r e a s onabl e t o pr e ve ntorr e s tr a i n vi ol a t i ons of s u b s e c tio n ( a ) ( 1 ) .” I d . § 5 5 3 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( A ) . M a r m e rm a in ta in s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t's or de rw a s i m pr ope rbe c a us e § 553( c ) ( 2) ( A ) doe s note xpl i c i t l y a uthor i z e the d is tr ic t c o u r t to f

r e e z e a s s e ts to p r e v e n t v io la tio n s o f § 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) . W e d is a g r e e . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s d ic ta te d th a t, u n le s s th e u n d e r ly in g s ta tu te c le a r ly a nd va l i dl y l i m i t s the e qui t abl e j ur i s di c t i on of the di s tr i c tc our t , “ a l l the i nhe r e nt e q u itab le p o w e r s o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u r t a r e a v a ilab le f o rth e p r o p e ra n d c o m p le te e xe r c i s e of

tha tj ur i s di c t i on. ” P or t e rv. W a rne rH ol di ng C o. , 328 U . S . 395, 398, 66 S . C t . 1086, 1089 ( 1946) . I n othe rw or ds , “ [ u] nl e s s a s t a tut e i n s o m a ny w or ds , or13

b y a n ecessary an d i n escap ab l e i n feren ce, restri ct s th e co u rt ' s j u ri sd i ct i o n i n eq u i ty, the ful l sc op e of thatj uri sdi ct i on i s t o b e r ec og ni ze d and appl i ed. ” I d. M oreover, w hen “ the pu bl i c i nt er es ti s i nv ol ved . . . , [the di stri ctcourt ' s] equi t abl e pow er s a s s u m e a n e v e n b r o a d e ra n d m o r e f le x ib le c h a r a c te r .” I d . O urc our tappl i e d P or t e ri n F T C v. U . S . O i l & G a s C orp. , 748 F . 2d 1431, 1432 ( 11th C i r . 1984) ( pe rc ur i a m ) , w he r e w e w e r e a s ke d t o de c i de w he the rthe di stri ctcourtprop er l y order ed an as se tfr ee ze un der s ec t i on 13 (b) of the F eder al T ra de C om m i ss i on A ct(“ F T C A ”) , 15 U . S . C . § 5 3(b), w hi ch express l y perm i tt ed the di stri ctcourtt o g ra ntprel i m i nary and p erm anenti nj un ct i on s. W e det erm i ned tha t“ C ongr e s s , w he n i tga ve the di s tr i c tc our ta uthor i ty t o gr a nta pe r m a ne nt i nj un ct i on . . . al so gave the di stri ctcourtautho ri ty t o g ra ntany a nci l l ary r el i ef nece ss ary t o acc om pl i sh com pl et e j ust i ce because i tdi d n otl i m i tthattra di t i on al e qui t abl e pow e re xpl i c i t l y orby ne c e s s a ry a nd i ne s c apabl e i nf e r e nc e . ” I d. a t1434 ( quot i ng F T C v. H . N . S i nge r , I nc . , 668 F . 2d 1107, 1113 ( 9th C i r . 1982) ) ; F T C v. G e m M e r c h. C orp. , 87 F . 3d 466, 468- 69 ( 11th C i r . 1996) ; s e e a l s o F T C v. S outhw e s tS uns i t e s , I nc . , 665 F . 2d 711, 721 ( 5th C i r . 1982) ( r e a s oni ng tha ts e c t i on 13( b) ' s a uthor i z a t i on t o i s s ue pr e l i m i na ry i nj unc t i ons a uthor i z e d a gr a ntof a n c illa ry e q u itab le r e lie f u n d e rth e “d o c tr in e o f

in h e r e n t e q u itab le ju r is d ic tio n .” ) .14

T hu s, w e c on cl ud ed thatthe as se tfr ee ze ent er ed by the di stri ctcourtw as a proper u s e o f th e c o u r t's e q u itab le p o w e r s . I d . T he C C P A cont ai ns l angu age s ub st ant i al l y s i m i l art o the l angu age c on t ai ned i n sec t i on 13 (b) of the F T C A . M oreover, as i n U . S . O i l & G as , thi s c as e i nv ol ves th e p u b l i c ' s i n t e r e s ti n p r e v e n t i n g th e s a l e o f p i r a t e c ab l e d e s c r a mb l e r s . Se e H . R. R ep. N o. 98 -934 , at84 (198 4), re pri nt ed i n 1 98 4 U . S . C . C . A . N . 46 55 , 47 21 (“ T heft of se rvi ce i s depri vi ng the cabl e i nd ustry of m i l l i on s of dol l ar s of r evenue eac h y e a rw hi c h i ts houl d othe rw i s e be r e c e i vi ng. T he C om m i tt e e be l i e ve s tha tthe f tof c abl e s e r vi c e pos e s a m a j orthr e a tt o the e c onom i c vi abi l i ty of c abl e ope r a t or s a nd cabl e program m er s, and crea t es un fa i r burdens on cabl e s ub sc ri bers w ho ar e f orce d to s u b s id iz e th e b e n e f

its th a t o th e rin d iv id u a ls a r e g e ttin g b y r e c e iv in g c ab le s e r vi c e w i thoutpa y i ng f ori t . ” ) . T hus , ba s e d on pr i orpr e c e de nt , a nd c ons i de r i ng P ort er ' s a dm on i t i on thatthe di stri ctcourt s' equi t abl e pow er s app l y e ven m ore b r o a d ly w h e n th e p u b lic in te r e s t is in v o lv e d , w e h o ld th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in th is ca se had p roper l egal autho ri ty t o i ss ue i t s orderfr ee zi ng M arm er ' s a ss et s. S ee C S C H ol di ngs , I nc . v. R e di s i , 309 F . 3d 988, 996 ( 7th C i r . 2002) ; T K R C abl e C o. v. C abl e C i ty C orp. , 267 F . 3d 196, 208 n. 4 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ; G e ne r a l I ns trum e ntC orp. of D e l . v. N u- T e k E l e c s . & M f g. , I nc . , 197 F . 3d 83, 90- 91 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . W e now15

c ons i de rw he the rthe di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by r e f us i ng t o di s s ol ve the a s s e t f r e e z e . 2. P ropri ety of the O rder T he T hi rd and S eventh C i rc ui t s have c on cl ud ed thatan as se tfr ee ze , i ss ued to p r e v e n t f

u tu r e v io la tio n s o f

§ 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) , is a n ap p r o p r ia te e q u itab le r e m e d y . R e di s i , 309 F . 3d a t996; T K R C abl e , 267 F . 3d a t208 n. 4; N u- T e k, 197 F . 3d a t90- 9 1 . A ft er co n si d eri n g th i s casel aw , w e co n cl u d e th atth e assetfreeze in this case w a s a ls o ap p r o p r ia te . I n N u - T e k , th e d e f

e n d a n ts a lte r e d le g a lly m a n u f a c tu r e d c ab le d e c o d e r s to e nabl e the m t o r e c e i ve a l l s i gna l s s e ntby the c abl e pr ogr a m m e r , w he the rthe de c ode row ne rha d pa i d f orthe pr ogr a m m i ng ornot . 197 F . 3d a t85. A j ury f ound the defendant s gui l ty of vi ol at i ng § 5 53 (a )( 1) of the C C P A , and t he di stri ctcourt s ubs e que nt l y i m pos e d a n i nj unc t i on pe r m a ne nt l y e nj oi ni ng the de f e nda nt s f r om m a nuf a c tur i ng ordi s tr i but i ng the m odi f i e d de s c r a m bl e rboxe s . I d. a t86. T he T hi rd C i rc ui taf

fi rm ed the di stri ctcourt ' s i m po si t i on of the i nj un ct i on as an approp ri at e use of di sc re t i on because the defendantdi d n otre fut e the di stri ct c our t ' s f i ndi ng tha t“ no i de nt i f

i abl e l e gi t i m a t e bus i ne s s e xi s t e d. ” I d. a t91. M o reo v er, th e T h i rd C i rcu i th el d th atth e d efen d an t ' s b u si n ess en t erp ri se

“ e s s e nt i a l l y f

a c i l i t a t e d c abl e the f

ti n vi ol a t i on of

§ 553. T o s t op s uc h a n ope r a t i on16

i s a pr i m a ry purpos e of

the i nj unc t i on. . . . L i ke w i s e , [ the de f e nda nt ] s houl d notbe al l ow ed t o u se i t s r em ai ni ng as se t s, w hi ch i n al l l i kel i ho od ca n serve on l y t o further o th e rc ab le th e f

t e n te rp r is e s .” I d . a t 9 0 - 9 1 ( q u o tin g d is tr ic t c o u r t o p in io n w ith ap p r o v a l) . T w o y e a r s l a t e r , the T hi r d C i r c ui tr e vi s i t e d N u- T e k i n T K R C abl e C o. , 267 F . 3d 196. A s i n N u- T e k, the T K R de f e nda nt s w e r e e nga ge d i n the di s tr i but i on a nd s a l e of i l l e ga l c abl e de s c r a m bl e r s . I d. a t197. T he pl a i nt i f f - c abl e c om pa ny o b ta in e d a n e x p a r te T R O f r e e z in g th e d e f

e n d a n t's b u s in e s s a n d p e r s o n a l a s s e ts . I d. a t198. A f

t e ra he a r i ng, the di s tr i c tc our ti s s ue d a pr e l i m i na ry i nj unc t i on c ont i nui ng the a s s e tf

r e e z e . I d. B a s e d on i t s c onc l us i on i n N u- T e k tha tthe defe nd ant -c abl e pi ra t e “ shou l d n otbe al l ow ed t o u se i t s r em ai ni ng as se t s” i n o rder to p r e v e n t “f

u r th e rc ab le th e f

t e n te rp r is e s ,” 1 9 7 F .3 d a t 9 0 , th e T h ir d C ir c u it a f f i r m e d the di s tr i c tc our t ' s i m pos i t i on of the a s s e tf

r e e z e i n T K R . 267 F . 3d a t208 n .4 . O ne y e a ra f

t e rT K R , the S e ve nth C i r c ui tf a c e d s i m i l a rf

a c t s i n R e di s i : the d e f e n d a n ts o p e r a te d s e v e r a l b u s in e s s e s e n g a g e d in th e m a n u f a c tu r e o f p ir a te c ab le decoders. 30 9 F . 3d at99 0. A ft erm ore than o ne ye arof i nv es t i gat i on , the pl ai nt i ffcabl e c om pany fi l ed a m ot i on t o fre ez e the R edi si s a ss et s. Id. at99 1. T he di stri ct c our tgr a nt e d the m ot i on a nd the S e ve nth C i r c ui ta f f i r m e d, not i ng tha t , be c a us e theIn f a c t, d uringoral argument, Ma

rm e r' s c ouns e l all b ut c on c e de d th at nole g itimate 11 business enterprise exist s. 17 pl a i nt i f f ha d r e que s t e d e qui t abl e r e l i e f , “ [ a ] n a s s e tf

r e e z e [ w a s ] . . . pr ope rt o s t op c abl e pi r a c y tha tvi ol a t e [ d] the C om m uni c a t i ons A c t . ” I d. a t996 ( c i t i ng T K R , 267 F .3 d a t 2 0 8 n .4 ) . T h e S e v e n th C ir c u it c o n c lu d e d th a t, “[ s ]in c e th e a s s e ts in que s t i on he r e w e r e pr of i t s the [ de f

e nda nt s ] m a de by unl a w f ul l y s t e a l i ng [ pl a i nt i f f ' s ] s e r vi c e s , the f

r e e z e w a s appr opr i a t e a nd m a y r e m a i n i n pl a c e pe ndi ng f in a l d is p o s itio n o f

th e c a s e .” I d . In thi s c as e, as i n N u-T ek, T K R , and R edi si , the di stri ctcourtgrant ed A T & T ' s req u estt o freeze M arm er' s asset s so th atM arm er co u l d n o t“ u se [h i s] r e m a in in g a s s e ts to f

u r th e ro th e rc ab le th e f

t e n te rp r is e s .” R 3 - 9 1 a t 1 . A n d a s in N u- T e k, M a r m e rha s notpr e s e nt e d a ny e vi de nc e i de nt i f y i ng hi s e nga ge m e nti n a ny le g itim a te b u s in e s s e n te rp r is e . T h e r e f o r e , w e a g r e e w ith th e T h ir d a n d S e v e n th 11 C i rc ui t s thatthe di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on by i ss ui ng the as se t f r e e z e . M a r m e ra l s o a r gue s , how e ve r , tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ' s r e f us a l t o di s s ol ve the or de ri n the f

a c e of the pa r t i e s ' a gr e e d i nj unc t i on w a s i m pr ope r . T hi s a r gum e nt f a ils b e c a u s e th e a g r e e d in ju n c tio n s ta te s o n ly th a t M a r m e rw ill n o lo n g e rd is tr ib u te pi ra t e dec od er s; i tsa ys no thi ng abou tM arm er ' s use of hi s r em ai ni ng as se t s. S ee ge ne r a l l y R 1- 23; s e e a l s o C e ntury - M L C abl e C orp. v. C a r i l l o D i a z , 43 F . S upp. 2dMarmer also argues that the sea

rch a nd seizure of property

from his home wa s an 12 unconstitutional viol ation of his Four th Amendment rights. Specifically, Marmer contends that 18 16 6, 17 3 (D . P . R . 19 98 ) ( “ T he fa ctthatsuch a pi ra t i ng sc hem e, enabl i ng the theft of [pl ai nt i ff

' s] si gn al s i n exchang e f or paym entt o the D ef

endant s, i s c l ea rl y i l l egal has t o d at e notse rved as a s uffi ci entdet erre ntt o D ef endant s. ”) . M oreover, other e v id e n c e in d ic a te d th a t a n a s s e t f r e e z e m a y b e n e c e s s a ry f o rM a r m e rto s to p h is i l l egal ac t i vi t i es . F or i nst ance , A T & T pres ent ed evi dence thatM arm erhad b ee n arre st ed for i dent i ty theftand t hathi s num er ou s c orpo ra t i on s had consi st ent l y bee n i nv ol ved i n the cabl e pi ra t i ng i nd ustry . In addi t i on , M arm eroffe re d n o o ther e xpl a na t i on f

orthe m i l l i ons of

dol l a r s c ol l e c t e d by the s e c orpor a t i ons . S e e R 3- 91 a t 1 . I n th e f

a c e o f s u c h e v id e n c e , w e c a n n o t s a y th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t's r e f u s a l to d is s o lv e th e a s s e t f

r e e z e w a s a n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . T o h o ld o th e rw is e w o u ld th w a r t C o n g r e s s 's in te n t in e n a c tin g th e C C P A : to p r e s e r v e th e e c o n o m ic v iab ility of cabl e operat ors a nd prog ra m m er s, and t o p re ventpu bl i c s ub si di za t i on of such i l l e ga l a c t i vi ty . S e e H . R . R e p. N o. 98- 934, a t84 ( 1984) , r e pr i nt e d i n 1984 U .S .C .C .A .N . 4 6 5 5 , 4 7 2 1 . D . S e a r c h a n d S e iz u r e o f P r o p e r ty M a r m e ra r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t's e x p a r te o r d e ra llo w in g A T & T to se i ze pi ec es of hi s property f rom hi s r es i dence w as i m prop erfor tw o p ri m ary r e a s ons : ( 1) the di s tr i c tc our tl a c ke d s t a tut ory a uthor i ty unde r§ 553( c ) ( 2) ( A ) of

12AT & T p re sente d in su ff ic ient evide nc ein s uppo rt of its motion

and , th e re fo re , p roba

blec a us eto search his residence w as not present. However, bec ause w e conc lude that the district cour t had leg al authority

to issue the seizure order and that issuance of the order wa s not an abuse of discretion (ba sed on evidence presente d reg ardingMarmer and other defendants like him, see section II .D.2, infra), Mar mer' s additional argument must fail.

19 th e C C P A t o i ssu e th e o rd er, an d (2 ) th e sei zu re o rd er w as u n n ecessary b ecau se A T & T p r e s e n te d n o e v id e n c e th a t M a r m e rw o u ld v io la te th e a g r e e d in ju n c tio n . W e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourthad t he l egal autho ri ty t o aut ho ri ze the se ar ch a n d s e iz u r e , a n d th a t is s u a n c e o f th e o r d e rw a s n o t a n ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n . 1 . S ta tu to ry A u th o r ity I de nt i c a l t o hi s a r gum e ntr e ga r di ng the a s s e tf r e e z e , M a r m e ra r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tl a c ke d s t a tut ory a uthor i ty unde r§ 553( c ) ( 2) ( A ) of the C C P A t o i s s ue i t s orderal l ow i ng A T & T t o sea rc h and se i ze prop erty f rom hi s r es i dence. M arm er arg u es th at , w h en C o n g ress w an t s t o au th o ri ze th i s typ e o f rel i ef, th ey d o so expl i ci t l y, as i n the L anham A ct , 15 U . S . C . § 1 11 6, w hi ch di re ct l y s t at es that d is tr ic t c o u r ts m a y is s u e e x p a r te s e iz u r e s . W e d is a g r e e . M a r m e r 's a r g u m e n t f

a ils to a c c o u n t f

o rth e S u p r e m e C o u r t's d e c is io n in P o rt er reg ard i n g th e b ro ad i n h eren teq u i t ab l e p o w ers p o ssessed b y d i stri ctco u rt s, d is c u s s e d in s e c tio n I I .C .1 ., s u p r a . S im p ly b e c a u s e C o n g r e s s h a s e x p lic itly a uthor i z e d e qui t abl e r e l i e f othe rtha n pr e l i m i na ry a nd pe r m a ne nti nj unc t i ons i n the L anham A ctdo es no tdi ct at e thatbroader equi t abl e r el i ef i s pre cl ud ed per s e und er20

the C C P A . W e ha ve pr e vi ous l y he l d tha tl a ngua ge s i m i l a rt o tha tc ont a i ne d i n the C C P A d id n o t c o n ta in a c le a rlim ita tio n o n th e d is tr ic t c o u r ts ' in h e r e n t e q u itab le a uthor i ty . U . S . O i l & G a s , 748 F . 2d a t1434; G e m M e r c h. , 87 F . 3d a t469- 70. N or d o es th e C C P A , b y n ecessary an d i n escap ab l e i n feren ce, l i m i tth e d i stri ctco u rt s' b r o a d e q u itab le p o w e r s . I d . B a s e d o n th is r e a s o n in g , w e c o n c lu d e th a t a n e x p a r te se ar ch and sei zure order di re ct ed ata def endant ' s r es i dence, w hi l e c ert ai nl y m ore dras t i c than an ex p art e a ss etfr ee ze , i s a n app ropri at e e qu i t abl e r em edy t o p rot ec t the C on gres si on al i nt entof the C C P A . A cc ordi ng l y, w e hol d thatthe di stri ctcourt h a d p r o p e rle g a l a u th o r ity to is s u e th e s e a r c h a n d s e iz u r e o r d e rin th is c a s e . W e no w consi der w hether i ss uance of the order i n th is ca se w a s a n abus e of di s c r e t i on. 2. P ropri ety of the O rder W he n the de f

e nda nt ' s i de nt i ty i s know n a nd not i c e c oul d f e a s i bl y be gi ve n, ex part e s ei zure s a re prop eron l y i f provi di ng no t i ce t o the defendantw ou l d “ re nd er f rui t l e s s the f

ur the rpr os e c ut i on of

the a c t i on. ” I n r e V ui tt on e tF i l s , S . A . , 606 F . 2d 1, 5 ( 2d C i r . 1979) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ; s e e F i r s tT e c h. S a f e ty S y s . , I nc . v. D e pi ne t , 11 F . 3d 641, 650 ( 6th C i r . 1993) ; A m . C a n C o. v. M a ns ukha ni , 742 F . 2d 314, 322 ( 7 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) . T o s u p p o r t a n e x p a r te s e iz u r e m o tio n , th e p la in tif f m a y n o t r e ly on ba r e a s s e r t i ons tha tthe de f e nda nt , i f

gi ve n not i c e , w oul d de s tr oy r e l e va nt evi dence. D epi net , 11 F . 3d at65 0-51 . R ather, the pl ai nt i ff m ust“ show that[the]21

defe nd ant [ ] , or pers on s i nv ol ved i n si m i l arac t i vi t i es , had . . . conceal ed evi dence ordi s r e ga r de d c our tor de r s i n the pa s t . ” I d. a t651; s e e a l s o V ui tt on v. W hi t e , 945 F . 2d 56 9, 57 5 (3rd C i r. 19 91 ) ( ex part e s ei zure order grant ed un der L anham A ct base d o n “ the fa ctthatatl ea stfour of the stre etvend or defendant s app ar ent l y a re se l l i ng coun t er fe i t s i n v i ol at i on of the perm anenti nj un ct i on ” i ss ued i n an earl i er a c tio n ) ; I n r e V u itto n , 6 0 6 F .2 d a t 2 ( s e e b e lo w ) . I n I n r e V ui tt on, the pl a i nt i f f r e que s t e d a n e x pa r t e T R O t o pr e ve ntthe de f e nda nt s f r om c ont i nui ng t o s e l l c ount e r f e i tm e r c ha ndi s e . 606 F . 2d a t1- 2. T he di stri ctcourtre fuse d t o g ra ntthe order and the S ec on d C i rc ui tre vers ed, no t i ng that the pl ai nt i ff

had p re se nt ed evi dence base d o n i t s pas texperi ence i n 8 4 si m i l arca se s and h un dreds of i nv es t i gat i on s r evea l i ng thaton ce a c ou nt er fe i t erl ea rned of an ac t i on agai nsthi m , he w ou l d “ i m m edi at el y tra nsfe r hi s i nv ent ory t o ano ther coun t er fe i tse l l er , w ho se i dent i ty w ou l d b e unk no w n. ” I d. at2 (qu ot i ng an a f f i da vi ts ubm i tt e d by the pl a i nt i f f ' s a tt orne y ) . T he S e c ond C i r c ui tor de r e d the d is tr ic t c o u r t to is s u e a n e x p a r te T R O “n a rr o w e n o u g h . . . to p r o te c t th e in te r e s ts o f th e d e f e n d a n ts .” I d . a t 3 . A s i n In re V ui tt on , A T & T pres ent ed evi dence thatother pi ra t e des cr am bl er s e lle r s h a d s e c r e te d e v id e n c e o n c e n o tic e o f a p e n d in g s e a r c h w a s g iv e n . S pe c i f i c a l l y , A T & T s ubm i tt e d the a f f i da vi tof D a ni e l L e f

kow i t z , a n a tt orne y w hoAt le a st twodis tric t c ourt s h avealsono te d th efre qu e nc y of su c h c on du c t. S e eCom c a st 13 of Ill. X, LL C v. Till, 293 F. Supp. 2d 936, 940 (E.D. Wis . 2003) (listing reporte d case s where sellers of de coder s have de stroyed evidence) ; Carillo Diaz, 43 F. Supp. 2d at 174 (same) . Reg ardingthe district court' s ref usal to return se ized property, Marmer did not argue, as 14 he had reg ardingdissoluti on of the a sset fre eze, that the cour t's refusal was improper

in the fac e of the agree d preliminary injunction. I ssues not raised on a ppeal a re c onsidered a

bandoned. United States v. Ford, 270 F.3d 1346, 1347 ( 11th Cir. 2001). 22 re pres ent ed anot her c abl e c om pany i n si m i l arl i t i gat i on , det ai l i ng nu m er ou s c as es w here defe nd ant s c harged w i th v i ol at i on of the C C P A destroye d o r tra nsfe rr ed re cords, evi dence, and ass et s. R 1-16 , E x. C at3-6. A T & T al so subm i tt ed 13 e v id e n c e th a t a s e a r c h o f M a r m e r 's r e s id e n c e w o u ld u n c o v e rr e le v a n t e v id e n c e . S peci fi ca l l y, M ar i n' s a dd i t i on al af fi davi ti nd i ca t ed thatw hen M ar i n cal l ed M arm er to p la c e a n o r d e r , M a r m e r“in d ic a te d h e w a s w o r k in g a t h o m e .” R 3 - 6 8 a t ¶ 1 1 . M arm eral so “ i nd i ca t ed thathe oft en forw ar ded h i s pho ne t o h i s hom e a nd w orked atho m e s el l i ng desc ra m bl er s a s l at e a [s ] m i dn i gh t . ” I d. In addi t i on , M ar i n st at ed th a t, d u r in g h is p h o n e c a ll w ith M a r m e r , M a r m e r“r e tr ie v e d r e c o r d s p e r tin e n t to [ h is ] p u r c h a s e f

r o m [ th e ] P a g o s a C t. a d d r e s s .” I d . W e c onc l ude tha tthi s e vi de nc e w a s s uf f i c i e ntt o s uppor tA T & T ' s r e que s tf or a n e x p a r te s e iz u r e o r d e re n c o m p a s s in g M a r m e r 's r e s id e n c e . A c c o r d in g ly , w e h o ld thatthe di stri ctcourt ' s i ss uance of the order autho ri zi ng A T & T t o sea rc h and se i ze pr ope r ty f

r om M a r m e r ' s hom e — a nd i t s s ubs e que ntde ni a l of M a r m e r ' s m ot i on f

or r e turn of the s e i z e d pr ope r ty— w a s nota n abus e of di s c r e t i on. 1423 I I I . CONCL US I ON M arm er ch al l en g ed th e d i stri ctco u rt ' s i m p o si t i o n o f, an d refu sal t o m o d i fy, a n e x p a r te o r d e ra u th o r iz in g M a r m e r 's a s s e ts to b e f r o z e n a n d c e r ta in o f

h is bu si ness prop erty t o b e s ei ze d u nd erthe C C P A . W e hol d thatthe di stri ctcourthad le g a l a u th o r ity to is s u e b o th th e a s s e t f r e e z e a n d th e s e iz u r e o r d e r . W e a ls o h o ld that , i n thi s c as e, i ss uance of bot h o rder s w as a proper exer ci se of the di stri ct c o u r t's d is c r e tio n . A c c o r d in g ly , th e o r d e r s o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a r e A F F I R M E D .