US Cell Site Analysis cases
US Appeal Court Decisions
Mistakes about GSM in this one
14 Cabrera first argues that, pursuant to Sepulveda, the government must proffer a "cell site" analysis. See Sepulveda, 115 F.3d at 889. A cell site analysis identifies the geographic area producing the calls. See Sepulveda, 115 F.3d at 890. Sepulveda, however, is factually distinguishable from this case. In Sepulveda, the defendants operated a "call sell center" where customers rented cellular telephones, with all the calls emanating from one location, the call sell center. The call sell center was located between two portions, or sectors, of a cell site. After the government arrested the Sepulveda defendants, it made numerous test calls at the call sell center to determine the cell sector that handled the calls. Cell sector A handled all the test calls. The government, however, charged the Sepulveda defendants with all the unauthorized calls made from cell sector A and cell sector B. This court remanded the case for resentencing because the cell site analysis the government proffered in response to the Sepulveda defendants' challenge was inconclusive about whether the unauthorized cell sector B calls more likely than not originated from the defendants' store. See Sepulveda, 115 F.3d at 891-92.
15 A cell site analysis is necessary in a case like Sepulveda where the cellular air time theft occurs in one location and the government charges the defendant with possession of cloned telephones in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3). In this type of case, courts limit liability appropriately to the amount of loss that the defendant's cloned telephone caused. A cell site analysis, however, is not helpful in a case involving device making equipment and the production and distribution of cloned telephones in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1029(a)(4), because the origin of the loss cannot be pinpointed to one geographic area.11 Thus, a cell site analysis in this case would not be helpful.