1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1965(b) or § 1965(d) authorizes nationwide service of process and the exercise of personal jurisdiction over out-of- district defendants in a civil action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

2. Whether absolute prosecutorial immunity bars civil damages claims against federal prosecutors for investigative and administrative conduct that is not intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.

3. Whether the law-enforcement safe harbors in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(f); the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2707(e); the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(e); and the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1833(a)(), reach a warrantless re-entry into a private digital facility conducted after the authorizing warrant has been fully executed and returned.

4. Whether the courts below misapplhed Sel/ Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal by treating a defendant’s asserted lawful- investigation explanation as an é “obvious alternative explanation” that defeats plausibility at the pleading stage, and by requiring a civil

| b) NETHER, Wied THe Secommes alls KK Malg & Commas: od et a ; DErernasy WN Seco kres Faadh, and seeks 19S Biod ‘show= Rewkerssat — The SevedTe Awe dS wes is TH AG shed, Ava de or doasT Ps eye a TS Ajey wal,

—,) Wikeraze tHe count Below Abuses WS Discheriod Me) WS ecltden ve ASOALSS TAS MATERIAL Frexs ad Tully Saiz Fes M2 Nd of we Rigu yo A Wty TRIAL 7 KS Qvatasyeen Seve Sevest Aweun ded JANES Becli JES x Ansfess ays Apply, THe UiFoem Oecrsiods 7A aakesy vu S80 34 £4” AAC, AAT (CS org, 4099.), ASD Seo vy Thikesu, God, S$. 109 (R024) EACH of Whhrey Applico te whe feaave o,5 ApfealL Meee, AdA WeRe QiSpeoswive,

3.) DiWesyee Ide.) Review: nla a10.6 BL WLod Fidap SOMA y Wong le JN” AWAD TS YHe Ee JMWE COIRT slow ABUSER WE Disctevcord By Faskidq To ConeecNly APPLY THE issds ONsclusiol/CoaTERa 2973 ppel’ Hetaie of THis Covar 4 Park La le Hosiery v. SHope, A439 JS .3320979) vo We. “secu rixies ERrava weg avots NHS Sees AVL PRoceeN7S 5 Quvirs x PAeclusNve elles <e +s. “Won (NadTenk. “Wi Aik ANA G)IRE- EAAYD allegations Aan The-pARAWeL cacaidAaL bRoceg A905 Avegats ous THAT we te actu avy ASA STKITOR Ly DISS (WILAL, Wo TAS Secs AV2q aVrons oF Seco at eg FAD, Otred dere Jevra esd TksVz Nav Q AewUatly Loviqavea, ada NON NECeSSALY TO VME \ydQWedT ty tHe

Para Wel carmidal P Rocesarng. :

7 16

Whether acts of juvenile delinquency, which are defined not to be crimes by 18 U.S.C. § 5031, are “crimes” within the definition of “child molestation” in Federal Rule of Evidence 414(d)(2).

LIST OF PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

The parties to the proceeding are Petitioner Brett Dewayne Cole and Respondent the United States of America.

There are no stock ticker symbols for these parties, and no corporate disclosure statement 1s required under Rule 29.6.

LIST OF RELATED PROCEEDINGS There are no related proceedings. i