Opinion ID: 613678
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Unauthorized access of a financial record

Text: To prove Tolliver was guilty of unauthorized access of a financial record, the government was required to establish that she “intentionally accesse[d] a computer without authorization or exceed[ed] authorized access, and thereby obtain[ed] . . . information contained in a financial record of a financial institution.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(A) (2008). “Actual asportation, in the sense of physically removing the data from its original location or transcribing the data, need not be proved in order to establish a violation of [subsection 1030(a)(2)].” S. Rep. No. 99-432 at 2484 (1986). As already discussed, there was sufficient evidence from which to infer that Tolliver intentionally accessed the customers’ accounts and that she did not have a business purpose to do so. As such, the government established that Tolliver exceeded her authorized access, and we will affirm her conviction for this offense. We conclude that all of Tolliver’s convictions were premised on sufficient evidence, and thus we will deny her request for relief on this ground. We also will affirm the District Court’s denial of Tolliver’s motion for judgment of acquittal and/or a new trial based on insufficiency of the evidence.