Opinion ID: 619103
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lance's Motion for Acquittal or a New Trial

Text: Lance argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of conspiring to obstruct a federal proceeding. In particular, he argues that the Government failed to offer any evidence showing a nexus between Lance's agreement to sign the false affidavit taking responsibility for the handgun and crack in the truck and the federal charges brought against Dalton. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), it is a crime to corruptly . . . obstruct[], influence[], or impede[] any official proceeding, or attempt[] to do so. The official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 1512(f)(1). The government must, however, prove beyond a reasonable doubt some nexus between the obstruction and the official proceeding. See Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696, 707-08, 125 S.Ct. 2129, 161 L.Ed.2d 1008 (2005). In a phone call the morning after Dalton was arrested, Dalton told Lance: I need you to take this charge, bro. You ain't gonna get nothin' but provation [sic], bro. I'm a get Jason Williams for your lawyer, and I'm a bond you out and you gonna fight this shit on the street bro. Lance responded, I'm a do it. Dalton then told Lance: But, uh, man, y'all gotta go, y'all go, you got to find [Miller] and, and go down there with Jason Williams and try to take this, this bro, before the feds accept it bro cause, which you they ain't gonna fuck which you like that, bro. That phone call alone provided sufficient evidence for the jury to find a nexus between Lance's agreement to sign the affidavit and the particular official proceeding that affidavit would obstruct, influence, or impede. See id. at 708. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying Lance's motion for acquittal or a new trial.