Whether petitioner Matthew Gatrel's convictions should be reversed due to insufficient evidence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether petitioner Matthew Gatrel’s convictions should be reversed because the government presented insufficient evidence to support his convictions. He was convicted of causing or attempting to cause damage to protected computers, but after six years of investigation the government was unable to produce evidence of damage to even one single computer. The reason is simple: no computers were damaged because the Websites were incapable of causing damage. 2. Whether Gatrel’s convictions should be reversed due to the district court’s erroneous jury instruction. To obtain a felony conviction, the government was required to prove that Gatrel damaged ten protected computers within a one-year period. Since there was no evidence of damage, Gatrel requested that the jury be required to return a unanimous verdict on which ten computers were damaged during the one-year period. The district court’s refusal to require unanimity violates the Supreme Court’s and this Court’s principles; see, e.g., Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 815 (1999), Erlinger v. United States, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2715, 2024 WL 3074427 (2024). 2 3. Whether the indictment must be dismissed for lack of venue. Gatrel resided in Illinois. The government filed the indictment in the Central District of California, relying upon the purported presence of codefendant Juan Martinez in the Central District. However, at the eleventh hour the government elected not to call Martinez to testify at trial, and therefore did not introduce any evidence to establish venue in the Central District. 4. Whether Gatrel’s sentence should be reversed because the district court erred in calculating the Sentencing Guidelines range, by imposing duplicative enhancements for sophistication of the offense. 3