UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________ 

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

)

v. ) Criminal No. 21-cr-354 (APM)

)

THOMAS B. ADAMS, JR, )

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________________ )

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I.

On January 30, 2023, following a stipulated bench trial, the court found Defendant 

Thomas B. Adams, Jr. guilty of (1) obstruction of an official proceeding in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1512(c)(2) (Count One) and (2) entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1) (Count Two). On June 16, 2023, the court sentenced 

Defendant to 14 months of incarceration and three years of supervised release on Count One and 

12 months of incarceration and one year of supervised release on Count Two, with each term of 

incarceration and supervised release to run concurrently. Defendant self-surrendered to the Bureau 

of Prisons on August 5, 2023, and has remained detained since then. 

Before the court is Defendant’s Motion for Release Pending Appeal, ECF No. 82

[hereinafter Def.’s Mot.]. For the reasons explained below, the motion is granted.

II.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1), a court “shall order the release” of an individual pending 

appeal if it finds: “(A) by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose 

a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released”; and “(B) that the appeal 
2

is not for the purpose of delay and raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in,”

as relevant here, “(i) reversal . . . . [or] (iv) a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than 

the total of the time already served plus the expected duration of the appeal process.” 

The court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant is not likely to flee and 

would not pose a danger if released. Defendant lacks the financial resources to flee and has strong 

community ties. Presentence Investigation Report, ECF No. 64 [hereinafter PSR], at 22–25, 29–

30. He also appeared at all court hearings, whether in person or remotely. Although he has some 

criminal history, including charges for burglary, those offenses occurred over 20 years ago when 

he was under 21 years old. Id. at 15–17. His more recent offenses are of the substance use variety, 

including two violations for driving while intoxicated. Id. at 17–19. Defendant also had a stable 

residence and was employed before his incarceration. Id. at 24, 27. Notwithstanding his history 

of substance use, id. at 26–27, including while this case was pending, the court found at sentencing 

that Defendant was not a threat to the community and permitted him to self-surrender. Sentencing 

Hr’g Tr., June 16, 2023 [hereinafter Sentencing Hr’g Tr.], at 78. There is no indication of recent 

violence or other criminal activity that would disturb these findings. 

The court also finds that Defendant’s appeal is not for the purpose of delay.

III.

The government contests whether Defendant’s appeal raises a substantial question of law. 

Gov’t Opp’n to Def.’s Mot., ECF No. 83 [hereinafter Gov’t Opp’n], at 3–4. Defendant intends to 

raise on appeal that his conduct falls outside the scope of § 1512(c)(2). Def.’s Mot. at 6–7. 

Defendant argued before this court that he did not obstruct an official proceeding because he did 

not take “some action with respect to a document, record, or some other object.” Def.’s Mot. to 

Dismiss Count One: Obstruction of an Official Proceeding, ECF No. 35, at 9–13. The court 
3

rejected his reading of the statute, Order, ECF No. 48, at 1–2, as did a divided panel of the D.C. 

Circuit in United States v. Fischer, 64 F.4th 329 (D.C. Cir. 2023). But the Supreme Court recently 

granted certiorari in Fischer to resolve whether § 1512(c)(2) covers “acts unrelated to 

investigations and evidence,” which prompted the instant motion. Fischer v. United States, 

No. 23-5572, 2023 WL 8605748 (U.S. Dec. 13, 2023); Petition for Certiorari, Fischer v. United 

States, No. 23-5572 (filed Sept. 11, 2023). 

A “substantial question of law” for purposes of § 3143(b) means a “close question or one 

that very well could be decided the other way.” United States v. Perholtz, 836 F.2d 554, 555 (D.C. 

Cir. 1987) (internal quotation marks omitted). The question of whether Defendant’s admitted 

conduct violates § 1512(c)(2) meets this standard. To be sure, as the government argues, the 

Supreme Court’s decision to grant certiorari in Fischer does not mean Defendant’s conviction will 

be vacated. Gov’t Opp’n at 4. However, it takes four justices to grant certiorari and, although this

court will not attempt to read tea leaves, the Supreme Court’s decision to review Fischer means, 

at a minimum, that this case poses a “close question.”

IV.

The court now considers whether a favorable outcome in Fischer is “likely to result in” a

“reversal . . . [or] a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than the total of the time 

already served plus the expected duration of the appeal process.” 18 U.S.C. § § 3143(b)(1). If the 

defense prevails in Fischer, Defendant’s § 1512(c)(2) conviction will be vacated. But Defendant 

also stands guilty of a second count of entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds

under § 1752(a)(1), a misdemeanor for which he received a statutory maximum 12-month 

sentence. Defendant thus far has served over five months of his sentence. See Def.’s Mot. at 9. If 

the Supreme Court were to issue a favorable ruling in Fischer near the end of its term in June 2024, 
4

at that point Defendant will have served approximately 11 months. So, the question becomes 

whether a reversal of Defendant’s § 1512(c)(2) conviction would result in a “reduced sentence to 

a term of imprisonment” of less than 11 months. The court finds that it would. 

Due to his § 1512(c)(2) conviction, the court determined Defendant’s guidelines range to 

be 30 to 37 months. Sentencing Hr’g Tr. at 38–40. That range was based on a Criminal History 

Category III and a total offense level of 17.1 Two of Defendant’s criminal history points were due 

to “status points.” PSR at 20. Because the recent Sentencing Guidelines’ “status points” 

amendment had yet to come into effect, for the purpose of considering a variance, the court treated 

Defendant as a Category II offender, reducing the guidelines range to 27 to 33 months. Sentencing 

Hr’g Tr. at 38. The court’s below-guidelines sentence of 14 months reflected a balancing of the 

§ 3553(a) factors, with particular emphasis on Defendant’s history and characteristics and avoiding 

unwarranted disparities. Id. at 63–74.

The applicable guidelines range would look quite different without a § 1512(c)(2) felony 

conviction. The base offense level for Count Two is a four. U.S.S.G. § 2B2.3(a) (trespass). Two 

points would be added because the entry occurred on a “restricted building or grounds.” Id. 

§ 2B2.3(b)(1)(A)(vii). Defendant would not receive a reduction for acceptance of responsibility 

for the reasons discussed above, see supra note 1, resulting in a total offense level of six. With a 

Criminal History Category of III, the applicable guidelines range would be two to eight months in 

Zone B. For variance purposes, the court would treat Defendant’s Criminal History as Category II, 

1 Defendant had a total of six criminal history points, including two “status” points based on his having committed the 

instant offense while on supervision in another matter. PSR at 20; Sentencing Hr’g Tr. at 37–38. The court applied 

U.S.S.G. § 2J1.2 to the § 1512(c)(2) violation. The base offense level was 14, and the court added three levels for 

substantial interference with the administration of justice, see § 2J1.2(b)(2), for a total offense level of 17. Sentencing 

Hr’g Tr. at 38–39. The court denied Defendant acceptance-of-responsibility points due to public statements made 

after his stipulated trial, which the court deemed inconsistent with his factual admissions. Id. at 33–37. The court 

calculated the same base offense level for Count Two, finding that Defendant entered and remained on restricted 

grounds to commit a felony, that is, a violation of § 1512(c)(2). Id. at 39–40; see U.S.S.G. § 2B2.3(c)(1). 
5

see supra, resulting in a guidelines range of one to seven months in Zone B, see U.S.S.G. 

Sentencing Table.

The government contends that the court should deny release pending appeal because 

Defendant’s “conduct on and after January 6 warrants the 12 months imposed on Count Two, even 

if his conviction on Count One is reversed.” Gov’t Opp’n at 4. But that position overlooks the

revised Sentencing Guidelines range. The top end of the guidelines range for a § 1752(a)(1) 

violation alone would be eight months (or seven months, if treated as a Category II offender). 

Thus, to sustain a 12-month sentence, the court would have to vary upwards by four months (or 

five months, if treated as a Category II offender). “To sustain an upward variance,” the court 

would have to “state the specific reason why the defendant’s conduct was more harmful or 

egregious than the typical case represented by the relevant Sentencing Guidelines range.”

United States v. Murray, 897 F.3d 298, 308–09 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and 

brackets omitted). There is no basis for such an enhanced sentence in this case. Thus, even a topof-the-guidelines, eight-month sentence on Count Two, standing alone, would constitute a “term 

of imprisonment less than the total of the time already served plus the expected duration of the 

appeal process,” that is, 11 months. 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1)(B)(iv). 

The court still must determine Defendant’s “likely reduced sentence” assuming the 

§ 1512(c)(2) conviction is vacated. Id. § 3143(b) (providing that, “in the circumstance described 

in subparagraph (B)(iv) of this paragraph, the judicial officer shall order the detention terminated 

at the expiration of the likely reduced sentence”). Such a sentence likely would be no more than 

the time Defendant already has served. In determining Defendant’s sentence, the court varied 

below the guidelines range in large part due to Defendant’s history and characteristics, including 
6

the obstacles he overcame in life and his work accomplishments. Sentencing Hr’g Tr. at 64–65. 

That factor would again play a sizeable role in any resentencing. 

Moreover, the court also varied to avoid unwarranted disparities, as it was cognizant of 

sentences other defendants had received for a top-count conviction under § 1512(c)(2). Id. at 71–

73. If Defendant were to be resentenced on Count Two, he would be a misdemeanant, not a felon. 

This court consistently has imposed sentences of short terms of incarceration (90 days or less) or 

probation with home confinement for January 6 defendants convicted only of a misdemeanor. 

Def.’s Mot. at 8–9 n.5. Defendant’s conduct is distinguishable from those defendants because he 

entered the Senate chamber on January 6, and the court was troubled by the public statements he 

made denying responsibility after his stipulated trial. See Sentencing Hr’g Tr. at 68–69. Still, 

weighing all of the § 3553(a) factors, the court likely would have sentenced Defendant to no more 

than the time he already has served if only convicted of a single count of violating § 1752(a)(1). 

V.

Accordingly, the court grants Defendant’s Motion for Release Pending Appeal, 

ECF No. 82. Defendant shall be released forthwith. Defendant shall report to the U.S. Probation 

Office in his district of residence within 48 hours of his release. His release conditions shall be 

the same as the conditions of supervised release set forth in the Judgment. Judgment, ECF No. 72, 

at 5–7. The parties shall contact the court within three days of the Supreme Court issuing its 

decision in Fischer to schedule a status conference to address whether further proceedings will be 

necessary. The court will issue a separate order to accompany this Memorandum Opinion. 

 

Dated: January 10, 2024 Amit P. Mehta

United States District Court Judge