services, or any other thing of value” which was “obtained with intent to defraud.” See 18 U.S.C. § 1029(e)(1) and (3). Therefore, under the plain language of the statute, account numbers, such as those corresponding to the Bell South Mobility accounts which are the subject of the indictment, are “access devices.” See e.g. United States v. Bailey, 41 F.3d 413, 417 (9th Cir.1994) (finding that “[w]hen that statute refers to ‘account ac~ cess,’ it evidently means access to the privileges permitted by virtue of the maintenance of an account.”). Additionally, the cellular account numbers allegedly obtained by Defendant allowed him to access the corresponding accounts which made possible the provision of cellular telephone service. See United States v. Brewer, 835 F.2d 550 (5th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). The Court, therefore, finds that the Bell
holding that denial of access to carbon paper and reproduction equipment and denial of facetoface access to other inmates did not deprive an inmate of his right of access to the courts holding that use of an identification number that allowed access to long distance telephone service was an access device as defined by 18 usc  1029e1 holding that damages for diminished access are not compensable as long as suitable access remains holding that reasonable access includes general facility access without notice and patient access with twentyfour hour notice holding that an individuals access to a service or website that requires an indication of assent to contractual terms before access to the service or website will be granted was sufficient evidence that the user clicked i accept 