Court Opinion

ID: 4290652
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-07-02 15:00:13.242856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:49:29.623676
License: Public Domain

17-2479
United States v. Gasperini

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                                 August Term, 2017

                 (Argued: June 6, 2018     Decided: July 2, 2018)

                               Docket No. 17-2479-cr

                             UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                    Appellee,

                                      — v. —

                                 FABIO GASPERINI,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

Before:

                 CABRANES, LYNCH, and CARNEY, Circuit Judges.

                                __________________

       Fabio Gasperini appeals from a judgment, entered after a jury trial in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Nicholas G.
Garaufis, Judge), convicting him of misdemeanor computer intrusion in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C), and sentencing him to one year in prison. On appeal,
Gasperini argues, among other things, that the computer intrusion statute is
unconstitutionally vague; that the district court erred in denying his motion to
suppress evidence that was seized in purported violation of the Stored
Communications Act; and that the district court abused its discretion in allowing
the government to introduce into evidence screenshots from the Internet Archive.
Because we find these arguments (and, as explained in an accompanying
summary order, all of Gasperini’s other arguments) to be meritless, we AFFIRM
the judgment of the district court.

             SARITHA KOMATIREDDY, Assistant United States Attorney (David C.
                   James, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Richard
                   P. Donoghue, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of
                   New York, New York, NY.

             SIMONE BERTOLLINI (Paul F. O’Reilly, on the brief), Law Offices of
                  Simone Bertollini, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellant Fabio
                  Gasperini.

GERARD E. LYNCH, Circuit Judge:

      Fabio Gasperini was convicted by a jury in the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of New York (Nicholas G. Garaufis, Judge) of one count of

misdemeanor computer intrusion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C), a

provision of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (“CFAA”). Gasperini

raises several challenges to his conviction. First, he contends that the statute that

he was convicted of violating is unconstitutionally vague. Second, he asserts that

the district court erroneously denied his motion to suppress evidence that was

                                          2
allegedly collected in violation of the Stored Communications Act. Third, he

contends that the district court abused its discretion in allowing the government

to introduce into evidence screenshots from the Internet Archive (also known as

the “Wayback Machine”). Gasperini makes several other arguments, which are

addressed in an accompanying summary order. Because we are not persuaded

by any of Gasperini’s arguments, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

                                  BACKGROUND

      The evidence discussed below is taken from the trial record. Insofar as it

relates to the offense of conviction, the evidence is viewed in the light most

favorable to the government, and we draw all reasonable inferences in its favor.

United States v. Guadagna, 183 F.3d 122, 125 (2d Cir. 1999). As it relates to the

sentencing issues discussed in the accompanying summary order, “we review

the District Court’s factual findings relevant to a sentencing determination for

clear error.” United States v. Johnson, 378 F.3d 230, 238 (2d Cir. 2004). In order to

vacate such findings, “we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to

the government and nevertheless find to be impermissible the factual

determinations based upon that favorably-viewed evidence.” Id.

                                           3
      In 2014, a virus began infecting QNAP-brand devices.1 Computer security

experts who detected the virus determined that the attacker behind the virus was

attempting to covertly infiltrate computers. The attacker targeted QNAP

computers, which do not log external internet connections, and used an often-

overlooked port to access the computers. The virus installed malware, which

included several commands for the computer to execute, in hidden directories on

the infected computers. Once a computer was infected, the attacker installed a

“backdoor” account, which had the status of a “superprivileged user,” with

unrestricted access to and control over the computer’s data. After creating the

backdoor account, the attacker patched the initial vulnerability that had allowed

him access, thereby locking out other hackers. The infected computer was then

instructed to scan the internet for other computers with the same vulnerability

and infect them. In this way, the attacker created what is known as a “botnet” – a

network of infected computers under the attacker’s control. An analysis of one of

the servers used in the scheme revealed that more than 155,000 computers were

infected worldwide. Many of those computers were located in the United States.

1
 QNAP Incorporated is a company headquartered in Taiwan, with offices and
warehouses in California, that manufactures and sells “network attached
storages,” which are computers specifically designed for the storage of data.

                                        4
      The virus’s commands accomplished different tasks. One command was

designed to take certain username and password files from the infected

computers and copy them onto a server. Another caused the infected computer

to disguise itself as a human browsing the internet, and to click on certain banner

advertisements. Yet another command prompted the botnet to launch

coordinated attacks on certain websites, a practice known as distributed denial-

of-service attacks.

      United States investigators identified Gasperini, an Italian citizen, as the

creator of the virus and perpetrator of the various attacks because he leased and

operated several servers around the world that were used to host the malware

and communicate with the infected computers. A search of Gasperini’s email

account also found a “test” copy of the computer virus that was initially used to

infect QNAP computers, and emails from Gasperini expressly referencing several

of the scripts installed on the infected computers.

      Evidence later adduced at trial also linked Gasperini to a related “click

fraud” scheme, in which the botnet computers were commanded to click on

certain advertisements. Business records showed that several websites implicated

in the scheme were registered in Gasperini’s name. Additionally, Gasperini

                                         5
contracted with an Italian advertising company to earn money for each

advertisement viewed on these websites. Finally, evidence at trial tended to show

that Gasperini monitored the operation. This included emails from his servers

reporting “clicks completed” and a photograph of his home computer

commanding his botnet to click on an advertising banners. After his arrest in the

Netherlands, Gasperini deleted the contents of his Google account, deactivated

his Facebook account, and instructed someone to discard the hard drives in his

home and erase others.

      A grand jury charged Gasperini with felony crimes of computer intrusion

with intent to defraud, for financial gain, and in furtherance of criminal acts; wire

fraud conspiracy; wire fraud; and money laundering. After a seven-day jury trial,

he was acquitted of all felony charges, and was convicted only of misdemeanor

computer intrusion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C), a lesser-included

crime within one of the computer intrusion felonies charged in the indictment.2

At sentencing, the trial judge found that the government had proven, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that Gasperini had committed the felony offenses

2
 The misdemeanor offense lacks the aggravating purpose element of the felony
charged in the indictment. See 18 U.S.C. § 1030(c)(2) (establishing escalating
penalties for violations of § 1030(a)(2) under various circumstances).

                                          6
with which he was charged. Accordingly, those crimes were considered as

relevant conduct in calculating the applicable Guidelines range, resulting in a

range of 63 to 78 months’ incarceration, which was capped by the statutory

maximum of imprisonment for one year. The district court sentenced Gasperini

principally to that statutory maximum. He now appeals from that conviction.3

                                    DISCUSSION

I.       Vagueness

         The statute under which Gasperini stands convicted punishes anyone who

“intentionally accesses a computer without authorization . . . and thereby obtains

. . . information from any protected computer.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C).

Gasperini argues that the statute is unconstitutionally vague because it does not

define the terms “access,” “authorization,” and “information,” and because the

definition of “protected computer” in § 1030(e)(2) is overbroad.

         Because Gasperini did not raise this challenge below, we review it for plain

error. United States v. Boyland, 862 F.3d 279, 288 (2d Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S.

Ct. 938 (2018). When reviewing for plain error under Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 52(b), an appellate court has discretion to correct an error not raised at

3
    Gasperini has served his sentence and has been deported to Italy.

                                            7
trial only where the appellant demonstrates that “(1) there is an error; (2) the

error is clear or obvious . . . ; (3) the error affected the appellant’s substantial

rights . . . ; and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity[,] or public

reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258, 262

(2010) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).

       Gasperini cannot clear the hurdle set by the second of these requirements.

“At a minimum, a court of appeals cannot correct an error pursuant to Rule 52(b)

unless the error is clear under current law.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,

734 (1993); see also Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018). Gasperini

cites no authority from any court – let alone one whose decisions are binding on

us – holding, or even suggesting, that § 1030(a)(2)(C) is unconstitutionally vague.

Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the district court plainly erred by not sua

sponte dismissing the indictment on that ground.

       In any event, Gasperini has not identified a due process violation here. “A

conviction fails to comport with due process if the statute under which it is

obtained fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is

prohibited, or is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously

discriminatory enforcement.” United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 304 (2008).

                                             8
We apply this standard in the context of the facts at issue, because, outside of the

First Amendment context, an individual “who engages in some conduct that is

clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the

conduct of others.” Id.

      Even if we assume, arguendo, that the statute’s application may be unclear

in some marginal cases (including some fanciful possibilities conjured in

Gasperini’s appellate brief), Gasperini’s conduct falls squarely and

unambiguously within the core prohibition of the statute. “Congress enacted the

CFAA in 1984 to address ‘computer crime,’ which was then principally

understood as ‘hacking’ or trespassing into computer systems or data.” United

States v. Valle, 807 F.3d 508, 525 (2d Cir. 2015), citing H.R. Rep. No. 98-894, at

3691–92, 3695–97 (1984), and S. Rep. No. 99-432, at 2480 (1986). In this case,

Gasperini was found by the jury to have hacked into thousands of computers

without permission, thereby gaining access to all of the information stored on

those computers. The jury further found Gasperini guilty of taking information,

including usernames and passwords, from at least some of those computers.

There is thus no doubt that all of these actions fall within the core meaning of the

phrase “accesses a computer without authorization . . . and thereby obtains . . .

                                           9
information from [a] protected computer” as the italicized terms are used in

§ 1030(a)(2)(C).4 Accordingly, Gasperini’s challenge to the constitutionality of 18

U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) fails.

II.   Suppression

      Gasperini next argues that the district court should have suppressed

certain evidence introduced by the government at trial, including (1) evidence

obtained pursuant to search warrants issued under the Stored Communications

Act (“SCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., and (2) evidence obtained during searches of

his home in Italy by Italian law enforcement officers pursuant to warrants issued

by Italian courts. The district court did not err with respect to either category of

evidence.

      Gasperini first argues that the SCA warrants were extraterritorial warrants

not authorized by that Act. He relies on this Court’s decision in Matter of Warrant

to Search a Certain E-Mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corp., 829
F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2016), vacated as moot sub nom. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 138

4
 Gasperini’s questioning of the definition of “protected computer” is also
meritless. The definition describes a wide range of computers, including ones
“used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication.” 18
U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2)(B). That standard, a familiar limitation on the reach of any
number of federal criminal statutes, has never been found void for vagueness.

                                          10
S. Ct. 1186 (2018), in which we held that the SCA does not apply extraterritorially,

and does not authorize the seizure of electronic communications stored on

servers located outside of the United States. Id. at 222.5

       Even assuming that at least some of the warrants demanded and acquired

electronic communications stored abroad,6 and that our ruling in Microsoft –

5
  As we explained in Microsoft, SCA “warrants,” although issued only when the
constitutional standards governing conventional search warrants are met, do not
authorize agents to enter premises and search for evidence, but rather are served
on a third-party holder of electronic communications and demand that the third
party turn over the information called for in the warrant. See 829 F.3d at 214
(describing the operation of SCA warrants). In that respect, SCA warrants
function analogously to subpoenas. See id. at 226–29 (Lynch, J., concurring in the
judgment).
6
  Gasperini asserts that because he lived in Italy, it is “obvious” that his emails
and Google Drive files were stored in Google’s foreign servers. Appellant’s Br. at
36. That assertion is far from obvious, however. Prior to our decision in Microsoft,
Google appears to have stored user data at locations that bore no relation to the
location of the user. See, e.g., In re Search of Content that is Stored at Premises
Controlled By Google, No. 16-MC-80263-LB, 2017 WL 1398279, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr.
19, 2017) (“Unlike Microsoft, where storage of information was tethered to a user's
reported location, there is no storage decision here. The process of distributing
information is automatic, via an algorithm, and in aid of network efficiency”)
(internal citation omitted) (amended and superseded on other grounds by In re Search
of Content that is Stored at Premises Controlled by Google, No. 16-MC-80263-LB, 2017
WL 1487625, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2017); In re Search Warrant No. 16-960-M-01
to Google, 232 F. Supp. 3d 708, 712 (E.D. Pa. 2017) (“Google stores user data in
various locations, some of which are in the United States and some of which are
in countries outside the United States. Some user files may be broken into
component parts, and different parts of a single file may be stored in different

                                          11
which was vacated as moot by the Supreme Court – correctly states the law,

suppression still would not be required, because suppression of evidence is not a

remedy available for violation of the SCA. Congress provided a number of

specific remedies for such violations; these do not include suppression of

evidence in a criminal case. See 18 U.S.C. § 2707(b) (listing “appropriate relief” in

a “civil action” as “equitable or declaratory relief,” “damages,” and “a reasonable

attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred”); 18 U.S.C. § 2707(d)

(providing for “disciplinary action against the officer or employee” who violated

the Act). Moreover, Congress expressly provided that the listed remedies are

exclusive, stating in § 2708 that the “remedies and sanctions described in this

chapter are the only judicial remedies and sanctions for nonconstitutional

violations of this chapter.” (Emphasis added).7 Gasperini does not request any

locations (and, accordingly, different countries) at the same time.”) (internal
citations omitted). Gasperini musters no evidence to support his conclusory
assertion that in his case, the emails and files obtained from Google had, in fact,
been stored abroad.
7
 Our reading of the SCA as not requiring or authorizing suppression of evidence
for nonconstitutional violations of its provisions is consistent the rulings of our
sister circuits that have considered the issue. See, e.g., United States v. Clenney, 631
F.3d 658, 667 (4th Cir. 2011); United States v. Guerrero, 768 F.3d 351, 358 (5th Cir.
2014); United States v. Smith, 155 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 1998); United States v.
Perrine, 518 F.3d 1196, 1202 (10th Cir. 2008); United States v. Steiger, 318 F.3d 1039,
1049 (11th Cir. 2003).

                                           12
form of relief authorized under the SCA, nor does he argue that any of the

purported statutory violations he identifies also violate the Constitution, and we

find no basis for any such argument. Accordingly, the district court did not err in

denying Gasperini’s motion to suppress the evidence collected pursuant to the

SCA warrants.

      Gasperini’s challenge to the use of hard drives and documents obtained

from Italian law enforcement officials who searched his home fares no better. The

searches were conducted pursuant to an Italian warrant, and Gasperini makes no

claim that the warrant was issued in violation of Italian law. He argues instead

that the Italian officials acted at the behest of American law enforcement agents,

thus making them subject to American constitutional requirements for searches.

“In order to render foreign law enforcement officials virtual agents of the United

States, American officials must play some role in controlling or directing the

conduct of the foreign parallel investigation.” United States v. Getto, 729 F.3d 221,

230 (2d Cir. 2013). Beyond alleging that the search was conducted at the request

of the U.S. government, however, Gasperini does not argue that Italian officials

were controlled by American law enforcement agents. A mere request is not

sufficient to show control. See, e.g., id. (“It is not enough that the foreign

                                           13
government undertook its investigation pursuant to an American [Mutual Law

Enforcement Assistance Treaty] request.”) There is thus no basis for Gasperini’s

efforts to apply to the Italian searches the constitutional standards that would

apply to domestic searches conducted by United States officers.

III.   The Wayback Machine

       Finally, Gasperini challenges an evidentiary ruling made by the district

court permitting the government to introduce screenshots of various websites

taken by the Internet Archive, more commonly known as the “Wayback

Machine.” “A district court judge is in the best position to evaluate the

admissibility of offered evidence. For that reason, we will overturn a district

court’s ruling on admissibility only if there is a clear showing that the court

abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily or irrationally.” United States v. Valdez, 16
F.3d 1324, 1332 (2d Cir. 1994) (internal citation omitted). We detect no such abuse

of discretion here.

       Gasperini challenges the authentication of screenshots of websites

registered to Gasperini for use in the click fraud scheme, which were captured

and stored by the Internet Archive, and maintained as business records of that

entity. Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a) requires that before evidence is admitted,

                                          14
“the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the

item is what the proponent claims it is.” That standard was amply met here.

      Gasperini relies on Novak v. Tucows, Inc., 330 F.App’x 204 (2d Cir. 2009), in

which we affirmed a district court decision excluding screenshots from the

Archive for lack of authentication. In that non-precedential summary order,

however, we held only that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

excluding the evidence in a civil trial, where the proponent of the evidence

offered no testimony explaining its provenance. Id. at 206, aff’g Novak v. Tucows,

Inc., No. 06-CV-1909, 2007 WL 922306 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2007). Here, in contrast,

the government presented testimony from the office manager of the Internet

Archive, who explained how the Archive captures and preserves evidence of the

contents of the internet at a given time. The witness also compared the

screenshots sought to be admitted with true and accurate copies of the same

websites maintained in the Internet Archive, and testified that the screenshots

were authentic and accurate copies of the Archive’s records. Based on this

testimony, the district court found that the screenshots had been sufficiently

authenticated.

                                         15
      The Third Circuit considered the admissibility of Internet Archive records

on a similar record in United States v. Bansal, 663 F.3d 634, 667–68 (3d Cir. 2011).

In that case, the court found that where a witness testified, from personal

knowledge, “about how the Wayback Machine website works and how reliable

its contents are,” there was sufficient evidence to authenticate screenshots taken

from that website. Id. at 667. We agree with the holding of the court in Bansal, and

hold that the testimony presented in this case by the government was “sufficient

proof . . . that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or

identification.” United States v. Tin Yat Chin, 371 F.3d 31, 38 (2d Cir. 2004).

Gasperini was free to cross-examine the witness about the nature and reliability

of the Archive’s procedures for capturing and cataloguing the contents of the

internet at particular times, and the jury was thus enabled to make its own

decision about the weight, if any, to be given to the records. Accordingly, a

sufficient basis was laid to place the admission of the evidence well within the

discretion of the district court, and Gasperini’s challenge therefore fails.

                                   CONCLUSION

      For the foregoing reasons, and those set forth in the accompanying

summary order, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

                                          16