15
opinions of those district judges are not binding on us, the near
unanimity of the rulings is striking, as well as the thorough and
persuasive reasoning in the decisions. See, e.g., McHugh, 2022
WL 1302880; Montgomery, 578 F. Supp. 3d 54; Sandlin, 575
F. Supp. 3d 16. The district judge in the instant case stands
alone in ruling that § 1512(c)(2) cannot reach the conduct of
January 6 defendants.
4
610 F. Supp. 3d 229, 233–35 (D.D.C. 2022) (Cooper, J.); United
States v. Williams, No. 21-cr-618, 2022 WL 2237301, at *17 n.13
(D.D.C. June 22, 2022) (Berman Jackson, J.); United States v.
Fitzsimons, 605 F. Supp. 3d 132, 137, 142–150 (D.D.C. 2022)
(Contreras, J.); United States v. Bingert, 605 F. Supp. 3d 111, 123–
28 (D.D.C. 2022) (Lamberth, J.); United States v. McHugh, No. 21-
cr-453, 2022 WL 1302880, at *2–12 (D.D.C. May 2, 2022) (Bates,
J.); United States v. Puma, 596 F. Supp. 3d 90, 107–08, 107 n.4
(D.D.C. 2022) (Friedman, J.); United States v. Grider, 585 F. Supp.
3d 21, 29–31 (D.D.C. 2022) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.); United States v.
Nordean, 579 F. Supp. 3d 28, 43–46 (D.D.C. 2021) (Kelly, J.);
United States v. Montgomery, 578 F. Supp. 3d 54, 69–79 (D.D.C.
2021) (Moss, J.); United States v. Mostofsky, 579 F. Supp. 3d 9, 24–
26 (D.D.C. 2021) (Boasberg, J.); United States v. Caldwell, 581 F.
Supp. 3d 1, 20–33 (D.D.C. 2021) (Mehta, J.); United States v.
Sandlin, 575 F. Supp. 3d 16, 24–28 (D.D.C. 2021) (Friedrich, J.).
4
The only cases we are aware of that align with the district
court’s narrowed interpretation are United States v. Singleton, No.
H-06-80, 2006 WL 1984467, at *3 (S.D. Tex. July 14, 2006) (“[T]o
violate § 1512(c)(2), the charged conduct must have some reasonable
nexus to a record, document or tangible object.”); and United States
v. Hutcherson, No. 605-cr-39, 2006 WL 270019, at *2 (W.D. Va.
Feb. 3, 2006) (“Section 1512(c)(1) lists specific conduct that is
prohibited under this subsection; while § 1512(c)(2) is intended to
account for unenumerated conduct that violates the subsection. If an
individual corruptly obstructs an official proceeding[] through his
conduct in relation to a tangible object, such person violates this