USCA Case #22-3038 Document #1958170 Filed: 08/08/2022 Page 1 of 94
`ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED
`
`Nos. 22-3038, 22-3039 & 22-3041
`
`
`
`In the United States Court of Appeals for the
`District of Columbia Circuit
`______________
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`v.
`
`JOSEPH FISCHER, EDWARD LANG, AND GARRET MILLER,
`Defendants-Appellees
`
`______________
`
`ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`D. CT. NOS. 1:21-CR-53, 1:21-CR-119, 1:21-CR-234 (NICHOLS, J.)
`______________
`
`APPELLANT’S CONSOLIDATED BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES
`______________
`
`KENNETH A. POLITE
`Assistant Attorney General
`
`LISA H. MILLER
`Deputy Assistant Attorney
`General
`
`MATTHEW M. GRAVES
` United States Attorney
` District of Columbia
`
`JOHN CRABB JR.
` Chief, Capitol Siege Section
` District of Columbia
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JAMES I. PEARCE
`Appellate Counsel, Capitol
`Siege Section
`Criminal Division
`U.S. Department of Justice
`950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
`Washington, DC 20530
`(202) 532-4991
`James.Pearce@usdoj.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #22-3038 Document #1958170 Filed: 08/08/2022 Page 2 of 94
`
`
`CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES
`Pursuant to D.C. Cir. R. 28(a)(1), the undersigned certifies as
`
`
`
`follows:
`
`A. Parties and Amici
`The parties that appeared in the district court and that are now
`
`before this Court are the United States (appellant) and Joseph Fischer,
`
`Edward Lang, and Garret Miller (defendants-appellees). There are no
`
`amici curiae or intervenors.
`
`B. Rulings Under Review
`The government seeks review of the orders of the district court
`
`(Nichols, J.) that dismissed counts charging obstruction of an official
`
`proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), in three separately
`
`prosecuted cases:
`
`• United States v. Miller, No. 21-cr-119, ECF No. 72, 2022 WL
`823070 (D.D.C. Mar. 7, 2022) (App.90-118), motion for
`
`reconsideration denied by ECF 86, 2022 WL 1718984 (D.D.C.
`
`May 27, 2022) (App.397-408);
`
`• United States v. Fischer, No. 21-cr-234, ECF No. 64, 2022 WL
`
`782413 (D.D.C. Mar. 15, 2022) (App.502-11), motion for
`
`i
`
`

`

`USCA Case #22-3038 Document #1958170 Filed: 08/08/2022 Page 3 of 94
`
`
`reconsideration denied by Minute Order (May 30, 2022)
`
`(App.421); and
`
`• United States v. Lang, No. 21-cr-53, Minute Order (D.D.C.
`
`June 7, 2022) (App.12).
`
`C. Related Cases
`None of these cases has previously been before this Court or any
`
`other court. Numerous defendants prosecuted in the United States
`
`District Court for the District of Columbia under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2)
`
`in connection with the attack on the United States Capitol on January 6,
`
`2021, have raised “substantially the same or similar issues,” see D.C. Cir.
`
`R. 28(a)(1)(C), but none of those defendants has prevailed on those
`
`challenges. Counsel is not aware of any other cases presenting
`
`“substantially the same or similar issues” currently pending before this
`
`Court.
`
`
`
`s/ James I. Pearce
`JAMES I. PEARCE
`Appellate Counsel, Capitol
`Siege Section
`Criminal Division
`U.S. Department of Justice
`
`ii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #22-3038 Document #1958170 Filed: 08/08/2022 Page 4 of 94
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................... v
`GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................... xiv
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................... 1
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ............................................................. 1
`STATEMENT OF STATUTES AND REGULATIONS ........................... 2
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................. 2
`A.
`Statement of facts ......................................................... 2
`B. Procedural history....................................................... 11
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................ 14
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................... 16
`I.
`Obstruction of an official proceeding, in violation of
`18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), covers the defendants’ alleged
`conduct on January 6, 2021. ................................................ 16
`A.
`Section 1512(c)(2)’s text, structure, and history
`confirm that its prohibition covers obstructive
`conduct unrelated to documentary evidence. ............. 18
`1.
`Section 1512(c)’s text and structure confirm
`that Section 1512(c)(2) is not limited to
`document-related obstructive conduct. ...............19
`The term “otherwise” reinforces that Section
`1512(c)(2) covers obstructive conduct “other”
`than the document destruction covered in
`Section 1512(c)(1). ...............................................26
`Tools of statutory interpretation do not
`support
`the district court’s narrowed
`interpretation. .....................................................37
`
`3.
`
`2.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #22-3038 Document #1958170 Filed: 08/08/2022 Page 5 of 94
`
`
`4.
`
`B.
`
`Legislative history does not support the
`district court’s narrowed interpretation. ............44
`Section 1512(c)(2)’s mens rea and nexus
`requirements limit the statute’s reach. ...................... 48
`C. The district court incorrectly applied the rule of
`lenity. .......................................................................... 54
`D. Even if Section 1512(c)(2) required that the
`obstructive act relate to documentary evidence,
`the defendants’ conduct would be covered. ................. 59
`II. Even under
`the district
`court’s narrowed
`interpretation of Section 1512(c)(2), dismissal was
`improper. .............................................................................. 61
`CONCLUSION....................................................................................... 68
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`STATUTORY ADDENDUM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`USCA Case #22-3038 Document #1958170 Filed: 08/08/2022 Page 6 of 94
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Ali v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons,
`552 U.S. 214 (2008) ........................................................................... 32
`Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States,
`544 U.S. 696 (2005) ................................................. 5, 47, 50, 52-53, 55
`Barber v. Thomas,
`560 U.S. 474 (2010) ........................................................................... 56
`Begay v. United States,
`553 U.S. 137 (2008) ..................................................... 15, 30-31, 34-36
`Bell v. United States,
`349 U.S. 81 (1955) ............................................................................. 55
`Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia,
`140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) ....................................................................... 39
`Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co.,
`331 U.S. 519 (1947) ........................................................................... 45
`Collazos v. United States,
`368 F.3d 190 (2d Cir. 2004) ............................................................... 27
`Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain,
`503 U.S. 249 (1992) ........................................................................... 40
`Dean v. United States,
`556 U.S. 568 (2009) ........................................................................... 22
`Freytag v. Comm’r,
`501 U.S. 868 (1991) ........................................................................... 42
`Gooch v. United States,
`297 U.S. 124 (1936) ........................................................................... 27
`
`v
`
`

`

`USCA Case #22-3038 Document #1958170 Filed: 08/08/2022 Page 7 of 94
`
`
`Hamling v. United States,
`418 U.S. 87 (1974) ............................................................................. 62
`Hubbard v. United States,
`514 U.S. 695 (1995) ........................................................................... 26
`Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson,
`525 U.S. 432 (1999) ........................................................................... 44
`Johnson v. United States,
`576 U.S. 591 (2015) ........................................................................... 36
`Kisor v. Wilkie,
`139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019) ....................................................................... 56
`Lawson v. FMR LLC,
`571 U.S. 429 (2014) ........................................................................... 19
`Liparota v. United States,
`471 U.S. 419 (1985) ........................................................................... 55
`Loughrin v. United States,
`573 U.S. 351 (2014) ......................................................................33, 39
`Marinello v. United States,
`138 S. Ct. 1101 (2018) ................................................. 20, 48, 53-54, 65
`Marx v. Gen. Revenue Corp.,
`568 U.S. 371 (2013) ........................................................................... 42
`Muscarello v. United States,
`524 U.S. 125 (1998) ........................................................................... 56
`National Ass’n of Mfrs. v. Department of Defense,
`138 S. Ct. 617 (2018) ......................................................................... 19
`Ocasio v. United States,
`578 U.S. 282 (2016) ........................................................................... 56
`
`vi
`
`

`

`USCA Case #22-3038 Document #1958170 Filed: 08/08/2022 Page 8 of 94
`
`
`Pasquantino v. United States,
`544 U.S. 349 (2005) ........................................................................... 40
`Republic of Iraq v. Beaty,
`556 U.S. 848 (2009) ........................................................................... 39
`Trump v. Thompson,
`20 F.4th 10 (D.C. Cir. 2021) ................................................................ 8
`United States v. Caldwell,
` No. 21-cr-28, 2021 WL 6062718 (D.D.C. Dec. 20, 2021) ........ 18, 31, 35
`
`United States v. McHugh,
` No. 21-cr-453, 2022 WL 1302880
`
`(D.D.C. May 2, 2022) ................................. 17, 24, 33, 35, 40-41, 43, 47
`United States v. Williams,
` No. 21-cr-618, 2022 WL 2237301 (D.D.C. June 22, 2022) ................ 17
`United States v. Aguilar,
`515 U.S. 593 (1995) .................................................... 23, 33, 52, 54, 66
`United States v. Ahrensfield,
`698 F.3d 1310 (10th Cir. 2012).......................................................... 25
`United States v. Ali,
`718 F.3d 929 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ............................................................ 42
`United States v. Ali,
`885 F.Supp.2d 17 (D.D.C. 2012), reversed in part,
` 718 F.3d 929 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ............................................................ 65
`United States v. Bass,
`404 U.S. 336 (1971) ........................................................................... 55
`United States v. Bingert,
`No. 21-cr-91, 2022 WL 1659163 (D.D.C. May 25, 2022) ................... 17
`United States v. Brown,
`688 F.2d 596 (9th Cir. 1982) ............................................................. 23
`
`vii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #22-3038 Document #1958170 Filed: 08/08/2022 Page 9 of 94
`
`
`United States v. Burge,
`711 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2013) .............................................20, 25-26, 44
`United States v. Butler,
`822 F.2d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 1987) .......................................................... 63
`United States v. Carson,
`560 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2009) ............................................................. 25
`United States v. Cervantes,
`No. 16-10508, 2021 WL 2666684 (9th Cir. June 29, 2021) ............... 25
`United States v. De Bruhl-Daniels,
`491 F.Supp.3d 237 (S.D. Tex. 2020) .................................................. 37
`United States v. Debrow,
`346 U.S. 374 (1953) ........................................................................... 63
`United States v. Erickson,
`561 F.3d 1150 (10th Cir. 2009).......................................................... 51
`United States v. Espy,
`145 F.3d 1369 (D.C. Cir. 1998) .......................................................... 32
`United States v. Fitzsimons,
`No. 21-cr-158, 2022 WL 1698063 (D.D.C. May 26, 2022) ...... 17, 22, 29
`United States v. Frank,
`354 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2004) ............................................................. 23
`United States v. Friske,
`640 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2011).......................................................... 53
`United States v. Grider,
`No. 21-cr-22, 2022 WL 392307 (D.D.C. Feb. 9, 2022) ....................... 18
`United States v. Haldeman,
`559 F.2d 31 (D.C. Cir. 1976).............................................................. 62
`
`viii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #22-3038 Document #1958170 Filed: 08/08/2022 Page 10 of 94
`
`
`United States v. Hillie,
`227 F.Supp.3d 57 (D.D.C. 2017) ........................................................ 63
`United States v. Howard,
`569 F.2d 1331 (5th Cir. 1978)............................................................ 28
`United States v. Hutcherson,
`No. 05-cr-39, 2006 WL 270019 (W.D. Va. Feb. 3, 2006).................... 36
`United States v. Jeter,
`775 F.2d 670 (6th Cir. 1985) ............................................................. 48
`United States v. Lefkowitz,
`125 F.3d 608 (8th Cir. 1997) ............................................................. 23
`United States v. Lester,
`749 F.2d 1288 (9th Cir. 1984)............................................................ 23
`United States v. Lonich,
`23 F.4th 881 (9th Cir. 2022) .............................................................. 50
`United States v. Martinez,
`862 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2017), vacated on other grounds,
` 139 S. Ct. 2772 (2019) ....................................................................... 25
`United States v. Montgomery,
`No. 21-cr-46, 2021 WL 6134591
`(D.D.C. Dec. 28, 2021) .................................... 18, 20, 22, 28, 35, 47, 51
`
`United States v. Mostofsky,
`No. 21-cr-138, 2021 WL 6049891 (D.D.C. Dec. 21, 2021) ................. 18
`United States v. Nordean,
`No. 21-cr-175, 2021 WL 6134595 (D.D.C. Dec. 28, 2021) ............18, 41
`United States v. North,
` 910 F.2d 843 (D.C. Cir. 1990), withdrawn and superseded in
`part by United States v. North, 920 F.2d 940 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ... 49-51
`
`ix
`
`

`

`USCA Case #22-3038 Document #1958170 Filed: 08/08/2022 Page 11 of 94
`
`
`United States v. Petruk,
`781 F.3d 438 (8th Cir. 2015) .................................................. 24, 26, 28
`United States v. Phillips,
`583 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir. 2009).......................................................... 25
`United States v. Poindexter,
`951 F.2d 369 (D.C. Cir. 1991) .......................................................41, 49
`United States v. Pope,
`613 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 2010).......................................................... 64
`United States v. Puma,
`No. 21-cr-454, 2022 WL 823079 (D.D.C. Mar. 19, 2022)........ 18, 28, 57
`United States v. R.L.C.,
`503 U.S. 291 (1992) ........................................................................... 55
`United States v. Reffitt,
`No. 21-cr-32, 2022 WL 1404247 (D.D.C. May 4, 2022) ..................... 58
`United States v. Resendiz-Ponce,
`549 U.S. 102 (2007) ........................................................................... 62
`United States v. Ring,
`628 F.Supp.2d 195 (D.D.C. 2009) ..................................... 27, 31, 37, 53
`United States v. Robertson,
`No. 21-cr-34, 2022 WL 2438546 (D.D.C. July 5, 2022) ..................... 17
`United States v. Sandlin,
`No. 21-cr-88, 2021 WL 5865006 (D.D.C. Dec. 10, 2021) .. 18, 30, 41, 51
`United States v. Singleton,
`No. 06-cr-80, 2006 WL 1984467 (S.D. Tex. July 14, 2006) ............... 36
`United States v. Sussman,
`709 F.3d 155 (3d Cir. 2013) ............................................................... 23
`
`x
`
`

`

`USCA Case #22-3038 Document #1958170 Filed: 08/08/2022 Page 12 of 94
`
`
`United States v. Vastardis,
`19 F.4th 573 (3d Cir. 2021) ............................................................... 24
`United States v. Volpendesto,
`746 F.3d 273 (7th Cir. 2014) ........................................................25, 28
`United States v. Watters,
`717 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2013) ............................................................. 49
`United States v. Williamson,
`903 F.3d 124 (D.C. Cir. 2018) ............................................................ 62
`United States v. Wiltberger,
`18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 76 (1820) ............................................................. 58
`United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.,
`513 U.S. 64 (1994) ............................................................................. 42
`United States v. Yakou,
`428 F.3d 241 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ............................................................ 64
`United States v. Young,
`916 F.3d 368 (4th Cir. 2019) ........................................................51, 53
`Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc.,
`531 U.S. 457 (2001) ........................................................................... 39
`Wooden v. United States,
`142 S. Ct. 1063 (2022) ............................................................ 31, 56, 58
`Yates v. United States,
`574 U.S. 528 (2015) ................................................ 5, 22, 32, 39, 41, 65
`Young v. United States,
`943 F.3d 460 (D.C. Cir. 2019) ............................................................ 56
`
`
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`USCA Case #22-3038 Document #1958170 Filed: 08/08/2022 Page 13 of 94
`
`
`Statutes and Constitutional Provisions
`
`U.S. Const. amend. XII ............................................................................ 6
`U.S. Const. art. II, § 1 .............................................................................. 6
`U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 3...................................................................... 6
`3 U.S.C. § 5............................................................................................... 7
`3 U.S.C. § 6............................................................................................... 7
`3 U.S.C. § 7............................................................................................... 7
`3 U.S.C. § 11............................................................................................. 7
`3 U.S.C. § 15..........................................................................................7, 8
`3 U.S.C. § 16............................................................................................. 8
`18 U.S.C. § 111....................................................................................... 11
`18 U.S.C. § 924....................................................................................... 30
`18 U.S.C. § 1341 ..................................................................................... 33
`18 U.S.C. § 1344 ..................................................................................... 33
`18 U.S.C. § 1503 .......................................................................... 23, 28, 66
`18 U.S.C. § 1505 ..................................................................................... 23
`18 U.S.C. § 1512 ..... 1, 2-3, 5-6, 11-20, 27, 37-38, 41, 43, 46, 48, 52, 58-59
`18 U.S.C. § 1515 ............................................................................3, 17, 26
`18 U.S.C. § 1519 .........................................................................4-5, 32, 66
`18 U.S.C. § 1520 .................................................................................... 4-5
`18 U.S.C. § 1651 ..................................................................................... 65
`
`xii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #22-3038 Document #1958170 Filed: 08/08/2022 Page 14 of 94
`
`
`18 U.S.C. § 3231 ....................................................................................... 1
`18 U.S.C. § 3731 ....................................................................................... 1
`Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745...3, 5, 45
`Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-291, 96
`Stat. 1248 ......................................................................................... 3-4
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`148 Cong. Rec. S6550 (daily ed. July 10, 2002) ............................5, 44, 47
`Oxford English Dictionary ................................................................20, 26
`S. Rep. No. 107-146 (2002) .................................................................... 4-5
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Crim. P. 7.............................................................................. 62-63
`Fed. R. Crim. P. 12................................................................................. 64
`
`
`
`
`xiii
`
`

`

`USCA Case #22-3038 Document #1958170 Filed: 08/08/2022 Page 15 of 94
`
`
`GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
`Appellant’s Appendix
`
`
`
`App.
`
`
`
`
`
`xiv
`
`

`

`USCA Case #22-3038 Document #1958170 Filed: 08/08/2022 Page 16 of 94
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
`This is a government appeal from three orders granting motions to
`
`dismiss a charged offense filed by Defendants-Appellees Joseph Fischer,
`
`Edward Lang, and Garret Miller. The district court (Nichols, J.) had
`
`jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. In Miller’s case, the district court
`
`entered an order granting the dismissal motion on March 7, 2022, and an
`
`order denying the government’s reconsideration motion on May 27, 2022.
`
`App.90-118, 397-408. In Fischer’s case, the district court entered an
`
`order granting the dismissal motion on March 15, 2022, and an order
`
`denying the government’s reconsideration motion on May 30, 2022.
`
`App.421, 502-11. In Lang’s case, the district court entered an order
`
`granting the dismissal motion on June 7, 2022. App.12. The government
`
`filed a timely notice of appeal in all three cases on June 22, 2022. App.58,
`
`409, 512. This Court has jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3731.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`1. Whether the district court incorrectly held that 18 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1512(c)(2), which makes it a crime for a defendant to corruptly obstruct,
`
`influence, or impede an official proceeding, does not cover the defendants’
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA Case #22-3038 Document #1958170 Filed: 08/08/2022 Page 17 of 94
`
`
`alleged conduct of obstructing Congress’s certification of the Electoral
`
`College vote on January 6, 2021.
`
`2. Whether the district court incorrectly dismissed a Section
`
`1512(c)(2) count that tracked the statutory language, described the
`
`congressional certification proceeding that the defendant was alleged to
`
`have obstructed, stated the place of the alleged offense, and identified the
`
`single day on which the offense was alleged to have occurred.
`
`STATEMENT OF STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
`Pertinent statutes and regulations are produced in an addendum
`
`
`
`bound with this brief.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`A grand jury separately indicted Fischer, Lang, and Miller for
`
`
`
`several offenses, including a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), in
`
`connection with their participation in the attack on the United States
`
`Capitol on January 6, 2021. Each defendant moved to dismiss the
`
`Section 1512(c)(2) count. The district court (Nichols, J.) granted the
`
`motions.
`
`A. Statement of facts
`1. Congress enacted a prohibition on “Tampering with a record or
`
`otherwise impeding an official proceeding” in Section 1102 of the
`
`2
`
`

`

`USCA Case #22-3038 Document #1958170 Filed: 08/08/2022 Page 18 of 94
`
`
`Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745, 807, and
`
`codified it in Chapter 73 (Obstruction of Justice) as subsection (c) of the
`
`pre-existing Section 1512. That prohibition applies to
`
`
`
`(c) [w]hoever corruptly--
`(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document,
`or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair
`the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official
`proceeding; or
`(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official
`proceeding, or attempts to do so.
`18 U.S.C. § 1512(c). Another provision defines “official proceeding” to
`
`include a “proceeding before the Congress.” 18 U.S.C. § 1515(a)(1)(B).
`
`When Congress in 1982 originally enacted Section 1512, it did not
`
`include what is now Section 1512(c). See Victim and Witness Protection
`
`Act of 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-291, § 4(a), 96 Stat. 1248, 1249-50. Its title
`
`then, as now, was “Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant.”
`
`Id.; 18 U.S.C. § 1512. As that title suggested, Section 1512 as originally
`
`enacted targeted conduct such as using intimidation, threats, or corrupt
`
`persuasion to prevent others from testifying or communicating
`
`information to law enforcement or the courts as well as intentionally
`
`harassing another person to hinder, delay, or prevent that person from
`
`3
`
`

`

`USCA Case #22-3038 Document #1958170 Filed: 08/08/2022 Page 19 of 94
`
`
`taking certain actions. See Pub. L. No. 97-291, § 4(a) (now codified as
`
`Section 1512(b) and Section 1512(d)).
`
`
`
`Twenty years later, following the collapse of the Enron Corporation,
`
`Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. That legislation, which
`
`principally aimed to “prevent and punish corporate and criminal fraud,
`
`protect the victims of such fraud, preserve evidence of such fraud, and
`
`hold wrongdoers accountable for their actions,” S. Rep. No. 107-146, at 2
`
`(2002), included several different provisions. Foremost among them were
`
`two new criminal statutes, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1519 and 1520, which were
`
`intended to “clarify and close loopholes in the existing criminal laws
`
`relating to the destruction or fabrication of evidence and the preservation
`
`of financial and audit records.” S. Rep. No. 107-146, at 14. Although the
`
`Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s legislative history provides limited explanation of
`
`Congress’s objective in enacting Section 1512(c), it was most likely also
`
`added to close a loophole: As noted in the Senate Judiciary Committee
`
`Report, the pre-existing prohibition in Section 1512(b) made it a crime to
`
`induce “another person to destroy documents, but not a crime for a person
`
`to destroy the same documents personally”—a limitation that “forced”
`
`prosecutors to “proceed under the legal fiction that the defendants [in
`
`4
`
`

`

`USCA Case #22-3038 Document #1958170 Filed: 08/08/2022 Page 20 of 94
`
`
`then-pending United States v. Arthur Andersen] are being prosecuted for
`
`telling other people to shred documents, not simply for destroying
`
`evidence themselves.” Id. at 6-7. Similarly, Senator Hatch observed that
`
`the legislation “broaden[ed]” Section 1512 by permitting prosecution of
`
`“an individual who acts alone in destroying evidence.” 148 Cong. Rec.
`
`S6550 (daily ed. July 10, 2002) (statement of Sen. Hatch).
`
`Congress thus enacted two new provisions as Section 1512(c):
`
`Section 1512(c)(1) prohibits various modes of tampering with a “record,
`
`document, or other object,” and Section 1512(c)(2) penalizes anyone who
`
`“otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding.”
`
`Unlike the specialized prohibitions found in Sections 1519 and 1520,
`
`Section 1512(c) was placed among the “broad proscriptions” in the “pre-
`
`existing” Section 1512. Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. 528, 541 (2015)
`
`(plurality opinion). And although Section 1512(c) as enacted in the
`
`Sarbanes-Oxley Act recognized two distinct prohibitions, see Pub. L. No.
`
`107-204, § 1102, 116 Stat. 807 (“Tampering with a record or otherwise
`
`impeding an official proceeding”) (emphasis added; capitalization
`
`altered), Congress did not amend Section 1512’s title. That title,
`
`“Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant,” § 1512, thus
`
`5
`
`

`

`USCA Case #22-3038 Document #1958170 Filed: 08/08/2022 Page 21 of 94
`
`
`encompassed the pre-existing provisions aimed at a defendant’s
`
`obstructive conduct directed toward another person but did not reflect
`
`the newly enacted prohibitions in Section 1512(c) that criminalized a
`
`defendant’s own obstructive act, either through destroying documents
`
`(Section 1512(c)(1)) or otherwise impeding an official proceeding (Section
`
`1512(c)(2)).
`
`2.a. Under the Constitution, every four years, state-appointed
`
`“Electors,” equal to the number of Senators and Representatives for that
`
`state, “vote by ballot” for the President and the Vice President of the
`
`United States. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1. After voting in their respective
`
`states, the Electors sign, seal, and transmit their votes to the President
`
`of the Senate. Id. cl. 3; U.S. Const. amend. XII. Thereafter “[t]he
`
`President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of
`
`Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be
`
`counted[; t]he Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the
`
`President.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 3.
`
`The Electoral Count Act of 1887, 3 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., supplies
`
`additional details about electoral voting in the states and the certification
`
`proceeding in Congress. For example, under the Act, the Electors must
`
`6
`
`

`

`USCA Case #22-3038 Document #1958170 Filed: 08/08/2022 Page 22 of 94
`
`
`be appointed no later than six days before they meet to cast their votes,
`
`id. § 5, and the executive of the state must send the Archivist a certificate
`
`of ascertainment identifying the appointed electors, id. § 6. The
`
`appointed electors then vote for President and Vice President on the first
`
`Monday after the second Wednesday of December, id. § 7, and send their
`
`sealed certificates of vote to the President of the Senate. Id. § 11. The
`
`Act describes in detail the counting of those votes in Congress. It
`
`identifies the certification proceeding’s date (“the sixth day of January”),
`
`the time (“1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day”) and place (“the Hall of
`
`the House of Representatives”). Id. § 15. It further identifies the
`
`required attendees (the “Senate and House of Representatives shall meet
`
`in the Hall”) and the “presiding officer” (the “President of the Senate”).
`
`Id. The Act spells out the presiding officer’s role in greater detail: the
`
`President of the Senate opens the certificates “in the alphabetical order
`
`of the States,” id., and calls for objections, which must be in writing. After
`
`the two Houses resolve any objections, the votes are counted with the aid
`
`of four tellers. Id. At that point, “the President of the Senate . . .
`
`announce[s] the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed
`
`a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice
`
`7
`
`

`

`USCA Case #22-3038 Document #1958170 Filed: 08/08/2022 Page 23 of 94
`
`
`President of the United States.” Id. Notably, Congress may not recess
`
`until “the count of electoral votes” is “completed” and the “result
`
`declared.” Id. § 16. When the count is completed and the winner
`
`declared, a record of the votes is entered on the “Journals of the two
`
`Houses.” Id. § 15.
`
`b. As Congress was undertaking its constitutional and statutory
`
`obligation to certify the Electoral College vote on January 6, 2021, a mob
`
`of rioters forced past police officers and into the United States Capitol
`
`building, causing Members of Congress and the Vice President to flee and
`
`stopping the certification, which was underway. The rioters threatened
`
`and assaulted officers, vandalized and stole property, and flooded
`
`throughout the building. App.92. The mob’s violence “left multiple
`
`people dead, injured more than 140 people, and inflicted millions of
`
`dollars in damage to the Capitol.” Trump v. Thompson, 20 F.4th 10, 15
`
`(D.C. Cir. 2021). The mob’s violent breach also forced the certification
`
`proceeding to stop, triggered a lockdown, and prevented Congress from
`
`resuming for nearly six hours as police officers cleared the “hundreds of
`
`people breaching the U.S. Capitol building.” App.190-206, 226.
`
`8
`
`

`

`USCA Case #22-3038 Document #1958170 Filed: 08/08/2022 Page 24 of 94
`
`
`Fischer, Lang, and Miller were part of that mob. Before January 6,
`
`Miller made