I believe this is the primary case being currently contested: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69848942/united-states-...

This appears to be the earlier filing, but I'm not savvy enough to pull the underlying docs if indeed I can (where I am used to viewing PACER documents I get a permissions error): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66960649/united-states-...

(If you install the RECAP extension in your browser you can cache downloaded PACER docs and they will get linked from Courtlistener. Lay users can sign up for a PACER account and if you use less than $30 of document access charge per quarter it will be waived)

Your second case was in the WD of Texas which is where he was arrested - it's just minutia to have him 'removed' to the ED of Texas to face charges where he was indicted - this is the main case there:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16517474/united-states-...

Here's his plea: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.19...

My recap is acting up a bit so I'll just copy/paste in case it doesn't grab docket entry 158 - the 'factual basis' for the plea:

1. That the defendant, Conrad Rockenhaus, who is entering a plea of guilty, is the same person charged in the Indictment;

2. That the defendant worked as a as a developer services manager, and later an infrastructure architect, for an online company providing travel booking and vacation services to customers (hereinafter, Victim Company );

3. That the defendant had access to and could control computer code located on Victim Company s servers throughout the country, including computer code that controlled business functions such as marketing, scheduling, and payment processing;

4. That on or about November 11, 2014, the defendant remotely accessed, without authorization, the Victim Company s servers from his residence in the Eastern District of Texas;

5. That on or about November 11, 2014, the defendant executed a computer code or command that shut down one of Victim Company s servers, which in turn caused several other Victim Company servers to crash;

6. That the defendant was retained by Victim Company to assist with the restoration of Victim Company’s servers;

7. That during the remediation efforts, the defendant, without authorization, disconnected Victim Company’s servers in Plano, Texas, in the Eastern District of Texas, causing further business disruption;

8. That the defendant’s actions cost Victim Company at least $242,775 in lost revenue and at least $321,858 in recovery and remediation costs.