The Third Circuit affirmed the defendant’s conviction for cyberstalking but reversed the District Court’s restitution order. After an interview with someone at Georgetown Law went poorly, and the school rejected his application, the defendant mounted a cyberstalking campaign against the interviewer. The Government indicted him for this conduct, and he pleaded guilty. The defendant claimed that the law is overbroad and, thus, facially invalid. The Third Circuit read the statute narrowly and upheld the conviction. However, the Court determined that Georgetown did not qualify for the “special” cyberstalking restitution statute because Georgetown itself was not harassed. Moreover, Georgetown did not qualify under the general restitution statute because the school did not suffer damage to any property rights.