Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-7451_m64o.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

Cite as:  574 U. S. ____ (2015) 

19 

Opinion of GINSBURG, J. 

conduct  rendered  illegal  and  strikes  the  appropriate  bal-
ance between the legislature, the prosecutor, and the court 
in defining criminal liability.”).  In determining the mean-
ing of “tangible object” in §1519, “it is appropriate, before 
we  choose  the  harsher  alternative,  to  require  that  Con-
gress  should  have  spoken  in  language  that  is  clear  and 
definite.”  See Cleveland, 531 U. S., at 25 (quoting United 
States v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp., 344 U. S. 218, 222 
(1952)).  See  also  Jones  v.  United  States,  529  U. S.  848, 
858–859  (2000)  (rule  of  lenity  “reinforces”  the  conclusion
that arson of an owner-occupied residence is not subject to 
federal prosecution under 18 U. S. C. §844(i) because such
a  residence  does  not  qualify  as  property  “used  in”  com-
merce or commerce-affecting activity).8 

—————— 

8 The  dissent  cites  United  States  v.  McRae,  702  F. 3d  806,  834–838 
(CA5  2012),  United  States  v.  Maury,  695  F. 3d  227,  243–244  (CA3 
2012), and United States v. Natal, 2014 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 108852, *24– 
*26 (Conn., Aug. 7, 2014), as cases that would not be covered by §1519 
as we read it.  Post, at 18–19.  Those cases supply no cause for concern
that  persons  who  commit  “major”  obstructive  acts,  id.  at  18,  will  go 
unpunished.  The defendant in McRae, a police officer who seized a car 
containing a corpse and then set it on fire, was also convicted for that 
conduct  under  18  U. S. C.  §844(h)  and  sentenced  to  a  term  of  120
months’ imprisonment for that offense.  See 702 F. 3d, at 817–818, 839– 
840.  The defendant in Natal, who repainted a van to cover up evidence
of  a  fatal  arson,  was  also  convicted  of  three  counts  of  violating  18
U. S. C.  §3  and  sentenced  to  concurrent  terms  of  174  months’  impris-
onment.  See  Judgment  in  United  States  v.  Morales,  No.  3:12–cr–164 
(Conn.,  Jan.  12,  2015).    And  the  defendant  in  Maury,  a  company  con-
victed under §1519 of concealing evidence that a cement mixer’s safety
lock  was  disabled  when  a  worker’s  fingers  were  amputated,  was  also
convicted  of  numerous  other  violations,  including  three  counts  of 
violating  18  U. S. C.  §1505  for  concealing  evidence  of  other  worker
safety violations.  See 695 F. 3d, at 244–245.  See also United States v. 
Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Co., 2007 WL 2282514, *70 (NJ, Aug. 2,
2007) (setting forth charges against the company).  For those violations, 
the company was fined millions of dollars and ordered to operate under 
the supervision of a court-appointed monitor.  See 695 F. 3d, at 246.