United States v. Timothy J. Smith, 22 F.4th 1236

Defendant Timothy Smith, a Mobile, Alabama resident and software engineer, accessed StrikeLines’ private artificial-reef coordinates (company office in Pensacola; servers in Orlando) and posted/offered the data on Facebook.
Smith communicated with StrikeLines’ owners, sent screenshots of the stolen data, refused to disclose methods, and later demanded “deep grouper” coordinates in exchange for removing posts (texts and Facebook posts forming the basis for an extortion charge).
Federal grand jury in the Northern District of Florida indicted Smith on three counts: CFAA (count 1), theft of trade secrets (count 2), and interstate extortion (count 3). Jury acquitted count 1 and convicted counts 2 and 3.
District court applied multiple sentencing enhancements (loss, sophisticated means, special skill, obstruction) and denied an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction; sentenced Smith to 18 months after a downward departure.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit held venue was improper in the Northern District of Florida for the theft-of-trade-secrets count (count 2) and vacated that conviction and the enhancements tied to it; it affirmed the extortion conviction (count 3), upheld the obstruction enhancement and denial of acceptance, and remanded for resentencing on count 3 only.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Venue for theft-of-trade-secrets (count 2)	Venue proper in N.D. Fla. because stolen data was produced in/through Pensacola and effects were felt there; §3237(a) also permits venue where interstate transport occurs	All essential conduct occurred in Mobile (where Smith received data) or on servers in Orlando; no essential conduct in N.D. Fla.	Venue improper in N.D. Fla.; conviction on count 2 vacated
Sufficiency of evidence for extortion (count 3)	Texts and Facebook posts were threats to injure reputation to obtain valuable information — sufficient for §875(d)	Evidence insufficient to prove extortion beyond reasonable doubt	Evidence sufficient; extortion conviction affirmed
Effect of vacating count 2 on count 3	Vacatur of count 2 does not require vacatur of count 3	Lack of venue for count 2 requires vacatur of related convictions	Vacating count 2 does not invalidate extortion conviction; count 3 stands
Sentencing enhancements & acceptance	Enhancements for loss, sophisticated means, special skill, obstruction justified; no acceptance reduction warranted	All enhancements and denial of acceptance should be vacated or reversed	Vacated enhancements tied to vacated count 2 (loss, sophisticated means, special skill); obstruction enhancement and denial of acceptance affirmed; remand for resentencing on count 3

United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275 (two-step test: identify essential conduct elements and their locus for venue)
United States v. Cabrales, 524 U.S. 1 (venue determined by location of acts constituting offense)
United States v. Bowens, 224 F.3d 302 (distinguishing statutes that define conduct in terms of effects for venue)
United States v. Barham, 666 F.2d 521 (venue based on location of effects for obstruction-type offenses)
United States v. Muench, 153 F.3d 1298 (venue based on where effects of child-support violation were felt)
United States v. Schlei, 122 F.3d 944 (vacatur of one count does not automatically void other counts)
United States v. Davis, 666 F.2d 195 (remedy for improper venue is vacatur; retrial in proper venue permissible)
Haney v. Burgess, 799 F.2d 661 (Double Jeopardy not implicated by retrial after vacatur for improper venue)
United States v. Auernheimer, 748 F.3d 525 (Hobbs Act and venue where commerce is affected)