Opinion ID: 776558
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Endeavoring to obstruct.

Text: 22 Senffner also argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of obstruction of a proceeding pending before the SEC under section 1505, because the government failed to prove that he endeavored to obstruct an SEC proceeding. He argues that there was no evidence that he believed his transfer would frustrate an SEC proceeding, or that after the filing of the lawsuit, the SEC's initial proceeding continued. The jury rejected his characterization of the facts, as we do. 23 In order to prove that Senffner endeavored to obstruct an SEC proceeding under section 1505, the government need only show that Senffner's actions had the natural and probable effect of interfering with that proceeding. Cf. Aguilar, 515 U.S. at 599, 115 S.Ct. 2357 (requiring the same for the similar obstruction provision in 18 U.S.C. § 1503). Such a showing is sufficient to satisfy the requisite mental state required in section 1505. Cf. id. We believe the government has met that burden. 24 To start, Senffner knew that the SEC was investigating and accounting for all of the funds in the lawsuit. At a minimum, his covert activity concealing the Tennessee Receiver check and his solicitation of Lauer to stall serves as evidence of that fact. The jury could have reasonably determined that his actions, in concealing the Tennessee Receiver check, also had the natural and probable effect of obstructing that investigation proceeding. 25 In addition, Senffner knew that the SEC initiated a proceeding before filing the lawsuit, and that the SEC brought the lawsuit and was prosecuting it as a result of that proceeding. He also knew that the purpose of those efforts was to recover the CHA funds and that purpose could not be achieved until all the funds had been returned. The jury could have reasonably determined that Senffner knew that the initial proceeding was not complete and continued until the funds were recovered. From that, the jury could have also reasonably determined that by concealing the Tennessee Receiver check, Senffner knew that he was obstructing that proceeding. 26 For these reasons, we conclude that Senffner has failed to show that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.