Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-5572_l6hn.pdf
Page Number: 13

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

9 

Opinion of the Court 

is  possible  to  violate  (c)(2)  by  creating  false  evidence—ra-
ther than altering incriminating evidence.  See, e.g., United 
States  v.  Reich,  479  F.  3d  179,  185–187  (CA2  2007)  (So-
tomayor, J.) (prosecution under subsection (c)(2) for trans-
mitting a forged court order).  Subsection (c)(2) also ensures 
that liability is still imposed for impairing the availability 
or integrity of other things used in an official proceeding be-
yond  the  “record[s],  document[s],  or  other  object[s]”  enu-
merated in (c)(1), such as witness testimony or intangible
information.  See, e.g., United States v. Mintmire, 507 F. 3d 
1273,  1290  (CA11  2007)  (prosecution  under  subsection
(c)(2)  based  in  part  on  the  defendant’s  attempt  to  orches-
trate a witness’s grand jury testimony). 

The dissent supposes that because the word “otherwise”
in  (c)(2)  can  mean  “in  a  different  manner,”  “by  other
means,” or “in other respects,” (c)(1) and (c)(2) are “distinct
and independent prohibitions.”  Post, at 2, 5 (internal quo-
tation marks omitted).  But the word “otherwise” is not by
itself  “sufficient  to  demonstrate  that  the  examples  do  not 
limit the scope of the clause.”  Begay, 553 U. S., at 144 (em-
phasis deleted).  “Otherwise” can link a set of examples to 
a general phrase and give it more definite meaning—even
in statutory sentences that rival the complexity of Section
1512(c).  See  Finnegan  v.  Leu,  456  U. S.  431,  437–438 
(1982); Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers, 493 U. S. 67, 91– 
92 (1989). 

2 

It  makes  sense  to  read  subsection  (c)(2)  as  limited  by 

(c)(1) in light of the history of the provision. 

Prior  to  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act,  Section  1512  imposed 
criminal liability on anyone who “knowingly uses intimida-
tion or physical force, threatens, or corruptly persuades an-
other person” to, among other things, shred documents. 18 
U. S. C. §1512(b)(2)(B) (2000 ed.).  But the Enron account-
ing scandal revealed a loophole: Although Enron’s “outside