Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-7451_m64o.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2014 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

YATES v. UNITED STATES 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

No. 13–7451.  Argued November 5, 2014—Decided February 25, 2015 

While conducting an offshore inspection of a commercial fishing vessel 
in the Gulf of Mexico, a federal agent found that the ship’s catch con-
tained  undersized  red  grouper,  in  violation  of  federal  conservation 
regulations.  The  officer  instructed  the  ship’s  captain,  petitioner
Yates,  to  keep  the  undersized  fish  segregated  from  the  rest  of  the
catch  until  the  ship  returned  to  port.    After  the  officer  departed,
Yates instead told a crew member to throw the undersized fish over-
board.  For this offense, Yates was charged with destroying, conceal-
ing,  and  covering  up  undersized  fish  to  impede  a  federal  investiga-
tion,  in  violation  of  18  U. S. C.  §1519.    That  section  provides  that  a
person may be fined or imprisoned for up to 20 years if he “knowingly
alters,  destroys,  mutilates,  conceals,  covers  up,  falsifies,  or  makes  a
false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent
to  impede,  obstruct,  or  influence”  a  federal  investigation.    At  trial, 
Yates moved for a judgment of acquittal on the §1519 charge.  Point-
ing to §1519’s origin as a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
a  law  designed  to  protect  investors  and  restore  trust  in  financial 
markets  following  the  collapse  of  Enron  Corporation,  Yates  argued 
that  §1519’s  reference  to  “tangible  object”  subsumes  objects  used  to
store  information,  such  as  computer  hard  drives,  not  fish.    The  Dis-
trict Court denied Yates’s motion, and a jury found him guilty of vio-
lating §1519.  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the conviction, conclud-
ing  that  §1519  applies  to  the  destruction  or  concealment  of  fish
because, as objects having physical form, fish fall within the diction-
ary definition of “tangible object.” 

Held: The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded. 

733 F. 3d 1059, reversed and remanded.