Court Opinion

ID: 9435927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 00:27:16.794422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:13.787887
License: Public Domain

BARKETT, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I agree that we need not reach the merits in this case (as Mr. Fontenot has not met his burden on plain error review), but I believe that the following additional excerpts from the legislative history are illuminating.
Chairman John Conyers, in introducing the legislation and reading from the section-by-section analysis of the bill, noted that § 1519 created a new “felony which could be effectively used in a wide array of cases where a person destroys or creates evidence with the specific intent to obstruct a federal agency or a criminal investigation.” 148 Cong. Rec. E463-01, E463 (daily ed. Apr. 9, 2002) (statement of Rep. John Conyers, Jr.).
Section 1519’s expansive scope is reaffirmed by Senator Leahy’s remarks when introducing the bill he co-sponsored. Senator Leahy elaborated that for prosecutions brought under § 1519, “[tjhere would be no technical requirement that a judicial proceeding was already underway or that the documents were formally under subpoena.” 148 Cong. Rec. S1783-01, S1786 (daily ed. Mar. 12, 2002) (statement of Sen. Leahy). Months later, Senator Leahy quoted a portion of the section-by-section analysis of the bill to explain that while other statutes “such as 18 U.S.C. § 1503, ha[d] been narrowly interpreted by courts, including the Supreme Court in United States v. [Aguilar], 515 U.S. 593, 115 S.Ct. 2357, 132 L.Ed.2d 520 (1995), to apply only to situations where the obstruction of justice can be closely tied to a pending judicial proceeding,” § 1519 was intended to “apply broadly” to remove these “technical requirement[s], which some courts have read into other obstruction of justice statutes, to tie the obstructive conduct to a pending or imminent proceeding or matter by intent or otherwise.” Id. at S7419. Senator Leahy further quoted the section-by-section analysis to emphasize that:
The fact that a matter is within the jurisdiction of a federal agency is intended to be a jurisdictional matter, and not in any way linked to the intent of the defendant.

Id.