I noted in September that the U.S. obtained convictions in what seemed to be the first criminal CAN-SPAM trial.  The case was not entirely open and shut, and while the government had a wealth of circumstantial evidence, my impression was that the court had to work the evidence into the confines of the statute.

Defendants have appealed their convictions.  They sought bail during the pendency of their appeal, and a stay of the civil forfeiture.  The court denied both requests (access the orders (pdf) here and here).

With the caveat that I'm not a criminal lawyer, I have to say that I'm a bit surprised at the court's decision.  The court mentions the two relevant factors as whether the defendants are a flight risk and whether they present substantial questions on appeal.  The first factor the court resolves in defendants' favor.  On the second factor the court focuses exclusively on the sufficiency of the evidence.  The court does not really address defendants' legal arguments.  A look at the court's initial order denying defendants' motion to set aside the guilty verdict shows that the court struggled to fit the defendants' conduct into the statutes.  The conduct defendants engaged in was not clearly prohibited by the statute.  In any event, I guess this illustrates that as much as civil defendants can catch breaks when dealing with CAN-SPAM claims, criminal defendants are a lot less likely to do so. 

I wonder how their appeal turns out?  (H/t Prof. Goldman.)
 
NB:  In related news, Ars notes that a criminal defendant in Colorado got a bit of a boost to his sentence based on the amount of profits he made on sending spam.