United States v. William Silvius, 559 F. App'x 490

Silvius was indicted in the Northern District of Ohio for trafficking devices designed to circumvent copyright controls, in violation of DMCA § 1201(a)(2)(A) and § 1204(a).
He pleaded guilty to § 1201(a)(2)(A) trafficking under a written plea agreement, reserving the right to appeal the vagueness of § 1201(a)(2)(A).
As part of the factual basis, Silvius admitted selling modification chips and swap discs designed to circumvent protections in Sony PS2, Microsoft Xbox, and Nintendo Wii.
He testified that he operated websites selling these items and that an ICE undercover agent purchased from his site, with related money sent via mail and bank records showing deposits.
The district court denied a pre-plea vagueness challenge, and later sentenced Silvius to probation, a fine, an assessment, and community service.
On appeal, Silvius contends § 1201(a)(2)(A) is vague as applied to sale of modification chips and swap discs; the government argues the plea admissions bind him to the conduct and render the challenge moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1201(a)(2)(A) is void for vagueness as applied	Silvius argues vagueness limits liability for sale of modification tools.	Silvius contends the statute lacks adequate notice for unflashed tools and fair-use exceptions.	Not unconstitutional as applied; admissions show clear applicability.
Whether the guilty plea provides a valid basis to uphold conviction	Government contends plea establishes a factual basis for guilt.	Silvius maintains lack of clear notice invalidates the plea scope.	Plea admissions provide a sufficient factual basis for guilt.
Whether Silvius forfeited or waived vagueness challenges	N/A	Argues vagueness challenge could be preserved for appeal.	Arguments considered waived or foreclosed by plea and admission.

Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1983) (void-for-vagueness requires definite notice to the punished conduct)
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 552 U.S. 581 (U.S. 2008) (applies vagueness concepts with respect to First Amendment scrutiny)
Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (U.S. 1974) (as-applied vagueness analysis to criminal statutes without First Amendment focus)
Village of Hoffmann Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (U.S. 1982) (classic vagueness and regulatory structure principles)
United States v. McCreary-Redd, 475 F.3d 718 (6th Cir. 2007) (test for determining existence of Rule 11(f) factual basis from multiple sources)
United States v. Robinson, 390 F.3d 853 (6th Cir. 2004) (waiver/forfeiture principles for appellate arguments)