UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant v. David RAINEY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-30770.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 27, 2014.
Other features of the plea agreement support this interpretation as well. Inclusion of the waiver of Rule 410(a) and 11(f) rights in a section preceded by the header “Breach of Agreement” suggests that it would become effective only if Escobedo breached the agreement. However, the section does not clearly or unambiguously state what constitutes a breach of the agreement. As noted, the section does not state or even imply clearly that Escobedo‘s withdrawal of his guilty plea under
For these reasons, we conclude that Escobedo‘s Rule 410(a) and 11(f) waiver did not become effective under the circumstances of this case, and that his guilty plea and the factual basis recited in Escobedo‘s withdrawn plea agreement and statements he made at the rearraignment hearing before the magistrate judge in connection with his initial plea of guilty were inadmissible at Escobedo‘s trial. See
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court with respect to count one of the indictment is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.6
Christopher Jackson Smith (argued), Trial Attorney, Stephan Edward Oestreicher, Jr., Sangita Katikineni Rao, Leo Rin Tsao, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Rohan Arun Virginkar, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Jeffrey Goldberg, U.S. Department of Justice, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Brian Matthew Heberlig, Esq., Scott P. Armstrong, Bruce C. Bishop, Jessica Lynne Urban, Esq., Reid H. Weingarten, Esq. (argued), Steptoe & Johnson, L.L.P., Washington, DC, Michael W. Magner, Jones Walker LLP, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Mary Beth Walker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae.
HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:
Distilled, this appeal raises a pure question of statutory interpretation. Congress criminalizes obstructing “the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress.”
I.
This criminal prosecution stems from BP plc‘s (“BP“) response to the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig on April 20, 2010. The defendant is David Rainey, BP‘s former Vice President of Exploration for the Gulf of Mexico.1
A.
Following the explosion, the United States Coast Guard coordinated the spill response by forming a “Unified Command” and installing Rainey as Deputy Incident Commander. Flow-rate estimates, stated in barrels of oil flowing from the well per day (“BOPD“), acted as the primary metric for gauging the spill‘s severity and therefore were integral to tailoring response efforts. Initially, the Unified Command estimated a flow-rate of 1,000 BOPD, but the National Oceanic and At-
The NOAA estimate also inspired Rainey independently to research and conduct his own flow-rate estimates. Rainey surfed the internet for “mass-balance” estimates, which is a method to conduct oil-spill estimates based on observing oil floating on the water‘s surface. Rainey discovered two generally accepted mass-balancing techniques: the American Society for Testing and Materials (“ASTM“) method and the European (“Bonn“) method. Rainey‘s Bonn estimates were significantly higher than 5,000 BOPD, reaching upwards of 92,000 BOPD. As alleged in the indictment, Rainey‘s ASTM estimates did not conform to ASTM standards and were “manipulated to consistently arrive at or near a ‘best guess’ of between 5,000 and 6,000 BOPD.” Aware of competing estimates, Rainey and other BP executives nevertheless maintained that 5,000 BOPD was the “best guess estimate.” Internally, by contrast, BP relied on expert teams using sophisticated methodologies that focused on the conditions at the seafloor. Subsurface engineers at BP sent Rainey their estimates, which estimated that flow rates ranged from 64,000 to 146,000 BOPD. Rainey also knew that other BP engineers estimated a range of 14,000 to 82,000 BOPD.
Conflict between BP‘s engineers and Rainey notwithstanding, BP stood by its 5,000 BOPD estimate and publicly rejected a professor‘s estimate that the flow rate was approximately 70,000 BOPD. Privately, it is alleged, a BP engineering supervisor sent an email to executives explaining that “[w]e should be very cautious standing behind a 5,000 BOPD figure as our modeling shows that this well could be making anything up to 100,000 BOPD depending on a number of unknown variables.” Rainey received this email, and it fell to him to draft a memorandum defending BP‘s allegiance to the 5,000 BOPD estimate. The “Rainey Memorandum,” as it is referred to in the indictment, selectively omitted evidence calling into question BP‘s 5,000 BOPD estimate and made material misrepresentations. Among other things, the Rainey Memorandum omitted Rainey‘s own Bonn estimates and represented that Rainey‘s own ASTM estimates were central to the Unified Command‘s decision to raise its estimate to 5,000 BOPD even though Rainey had not provided his ASTM estimates to the Unified Command in advance of the decision to raise the estimate. BP‘s estimate became harder to sustain, however, and the Unified Command created the “Flow Rate Technical Group,” which consisted of independent and government experts. The Flow Rate Technical Group estimated that the flow rate after the blowout was approximately 62,000 BOPD and was 53,000 BOPD at the time the well was shut.
Enter the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment (the “Subcommittee“), which was a subcommittee of the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress. The Subcommittee investigated the blowout and spill, and requested information from BP. In response to a Congressional request for briefing, Rainey informed the Subcommittee that 5,000 BOPD was the most accurate estimate. He explained that the “worst case”
Subsequently, the Subcommittee Chairman sent BP a letter accusing it of understating the flow rate and requested that BP respond to fifteen questions relating to its flow-rate calculations. Among other requests, the Subcommittee requested that BP explain what methodology supported its 5,000 BOPD estimate, that BP produce all of its documents that relate to its flow-rate estimates, and that BP provide its current estimate of the flow rate and its methodology supporting that estimate. Rainey was the primary source of flow-rate information for BP‘s response to the Subcommittee. Rainey was aware that everyone within the Flow Rate Technical Group agreed that 5,000 BOPD was too low, but he did not disclose this disagreement to BP‘s lawyers and other BP employees. Indeed, BP‘s response omitted key information which would have undercut its 5,000 BOPD estimate. The response did not include, among other things, Rainey‘s Bonn estimates that ranged up to 92,000 BOPD, key parts of the supervising engineer‘s estimates ranging up to 82,000 BOPD, the supervising engineer‘s email indicating concern with BP‘s 5,000 BOPD estimate, and the subsurface engineers’ estimates ranging up to 146,000 BOPD. BP‘s response also appended Rainey‘s prior memorandum defending the 5,000 BOPD estimate.
B.
A federal grand jury indicted Rainey for one count of obstructing Congress in violation of
On May 20, 2013, the district court dismissed the obstruction count on two alternative grounds. First, the district court determined that
II.
Three issues postpone our discussion of
In a criminal case, an affirmative appeal by the Government “shall be taken within thirty days after the decision, judgment or order has been rendered.”
Deflating Rainey‘s argument is the Supreme Court‘s decision in United States v. Healy, 376 U.S. 75, 77-78, 84 S.Ct. 553, 11 L.Ed.2d 527 (1964), which held that “a timely petition for rehearing by the Government filed within the permissible time for appeal renders the judgment not final for purposes of appeal until the court disposes of the petition.” Id. at 77-78. By validating the exact sequence in this case, Healy explained that its holding was “consistent with a traditional and virtually unquestioned practice.” Id. at 79. The Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed Healy. See United States v. Ibarra, 502 U.S. 1, 6-8, 112 S.Ct. 4, 116 L.Ed.2d 1 (1991) (per curiam); United States v. Dieter, 429 U.S. 6, 7-9, 97 S.Ct. 18, 50 L.Ed.2d 8 (1976) (per curiam). Our circuit has followed Healy without pause. See, e.g., United States v. Greenwood, 974 F.2d 1449, 1466-67 (5th Cir.1992).
Rainey counters that Bowles v. Russell overrules Healy and its progeny. 551 U.S. 205, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). In Bowles, the Supreme Court held that a district court could not extend a party‘s time for filing an appeal beyond the statutorily prescribed period. Id. at 206. The Court reasoned that “[l]ike the initial 30-day period for filing a notice of appeal, the limit on how long a district court may reopen that period is set forth in a statute.” Id. at 213. The filing period is a jurisdictional limit, the Court continued, and “this Court has no authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements.” Id. at 214.
There is a certain friction between Healy‘s a textual recognition that a motion to reconsider renders a judgment not final and Bowles‘s elimination of judge-made exceptions to statutory filing periods, but we must read these cases favoring reconciliation, especially when Bowles does not mention Healy or any of the cases Rainey contends are now overruled. See, e.g., In re Pilgrim‘s Pride Corp., 690 F.3d 650, 663 (5th Cir.2012) (“[W]e exercise restraint when determining whether a Supreme Court decision has produced an intervening change in the law.“). The Supreme Court instructs that if “a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 237, 117 S.Ct. 1997, 138 L.Ed.2d 391 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Healy directly controls and also may be distinguished from Bowles because it does not extend the statutory prescribed filing period, but delineates when the thirty-day period begins to run. Under Healy, the Government continues to be bound by the thirty-day requirement, but the judgment becomes final, and the clock begins to run, only after the disposition of a timely filed motion to reconsider. Therefore, and consistent with our sister circuits’ continuing application of Healy after Bowles, we hold
B.
The same day that the Government moved the district court to reconsider the dismissal of count one, a federal grand jury returned a superseding indictment. The superseding indictment purports to correct defects identified by the district court and appealed to us, including that Rainey obstructed a committee of the House rather than a subcommittee. Rainey contends that the return of a superseding indictment moots the Government‘s appeal of the original indictment. We have recognized, however, that “two indictments may be outstanding at the same time for the same offense if jeopardy has not attached to the first indictment.” United States v. Stricklin, 591 F.2d 1112, 1116 & n. 1 (5th Cir.1979). More exactly,
[t]he filing of the second superseding indictment, upon which the Government apparently intends to try defendant, does not moot this appeal because the first superseding indictment is presently still pending and because the conspiracy counts in the first and second superseding indictments are identical so that any decision here would control the disposition of a motion directed at the subsequent indictment.
United States v. Lee, 622 F.2d 787, 789 (5th Cir.1980).
Rainey insists that the superseding indictment proceeds on a different ground than the original indictment, and therefore the outcome of this appeal cannot have any future impact. But in Stricklin, a superseding indictment did not render the appeal moot; indeed, we considered “both indictments for purposes of this review.” Stricklin, 591 F.2d at 1116 n. 1. The Government in Stricklin “indicated that it may attempt to proceed on a combination of the two indictments because the superceding [sic] indictment deals only with a portion of the original indictment‘s charges.” Id. Equally here, the Government represents that “if the district court‘s order were reversed, [it] could proceed on a theory that Section 1505 prohibits obstruction of inquiries by both full committees and subcommittees by, for example, seeking to once again supersede the indictment to include this theory.” Because Rainey has not demonstrated that “the issues presented are no longer live,” we apply our controlling precedent in Stricklin and deny his motion to dismiss. AT&T Commc‘ns of Sw., Inc. v. City of Austin, 235 F.3d 241, 243 (5th Cir.2000).2
C.
The Government next asks us to invoke our discretion to hold this appeal in abeyance pending the district court‘s resolution of Rainey‘s motion to dismiss the superseding indictment. The Government
III.
Section 1505 is entitled “[o]bstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees.” The statute punishes criminally whoever obstructs “the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress.”
A.
“Courts in applying criminal laws generally must follow the plain and unambiguous meaning of the statutory language.” Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 57, 118 S.Ct. 469, 139 L.Ed.2d 352 (1997). We determine whether a statute is plain or ambiguous by “reference to the language itself, the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole.” Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341, 117 S.Ct. 843, 136 L.Ed.2d 808 (1997). The text is plain and determinative, and all tools of statutory construction favor reading
1.
Section 1505 leaves “committee” undefined. The district court recognized that given its ordinary, plain meaning, the statutory language “any committee of either House” encompasses congressional subcommittees. Dictionary definitions of “committee” have remained markedly similar dating back to
Rainey contends that this plain reading should give way to a “technical” reading because this statute operates in the “congressional context.” Rainey‘s argument faces an uphill battle because “[i]t is long settled that words in statutes should be given their ordinary, popular meaning unless Congress clearly meant the words in some more technical sense.” United States v. Nat‘l Broiler Mktg. Ass‘n, 550 F.2d 1380, 1386 (5th Cir.1977) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Hubbard, 480 F.3d 341, 348 (5th Cir.2007) (“The question is whether there is sufficient indication that Congress indicated something other than the generic definitions of the terms it used.“). The fixed default rule of plain meaning is especially appropriate in the criminal context, where the statute‘s primary audience is not the legislators it protects but the would-be obstructors attempting to discern their potential exposure. See, e.g., Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1, 6, 119 S.Ct. 966, 143 L.Ed.2d 1 (1999) (“Justice White reminded us that the language of the statutes that Congress enacts provides the most reliable evidence of its intent.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Rainey‘s view, however, is that “committee” does not mean committee in the ordinary sense, but means “a group of legislators, formally created by and reporting to the House(s) on particular matters, in accordance with the Rules of the House(s).” Because a subcommittee reports to the committee of which it is a part and not the entire House, Rainey argues a congressional subcommittee is not a “committee” for the purposes of
Rainey‘s method of interpretation is a textual. Instead of relying on the statutory text to demonstrate that Congress intended a technical meaning of “committee” to supplant the plain meaning, Rainey primarily relies on “the congressional context” of the statute. Put another way, nothing in the statute itself reflects congressional intention to import a technical meaning to the phrase “any committee.” Section 1505 does not prohibit obstructing any committee that “reports to either House,” the definition Rainey suggests, but instead protects “any committee of either House.”
Rainey also attempts to draw congressional intent from the Act of June 18, 1940 Pub.L. No. 76-641, 54 Stat. 462, 467, which provided salaries for committee employees and listed, among other positions, “four clerk-stenographers, at the annual rate of $1,800 each, one for each subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriation....” This appropriation for specific subcommittee employees implies little about
Rainey further cites the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948, ch. 169, § 124(c), 62 Stat. 137, 156, as evidence that the 80th Congress “not only knew how to, but did, use the term ‘subcommittee’ when it intended to include that type of entity.” This legislation, however, “established a joint congressional committee to be known as the Joint Committee on Foreign Economic Cooperation (hereinafter referred to as the committee).” Id. (emphasis added). The Act further provides that “[t]he committee, or any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorized to hold such hearings....” Id. The material difference between this legislation and
2.
Our interpretation is consistent with the existence of
Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.
The D.C. Circuit dismissed a narrow reading of “any committee of either House of Congress” in
We disagree. Nothing has been shown which reflects that Congress has indicated such belief. We can only construe the statute in the light of the obvious purpose for its enactment. That purpose was to discourage the impairment of the vital investigative function of Congress. The function Congress sought to protect is as often committed to subcommittees as it is to full committees of Congress, as indeed it must be.
Id. (internal citations omitted). “Construing the statute in a manner consistent with its obvious purpose,” the Court concluded, “we hold that Congress intended the word ‘committee’ in its generic sense, which would include subcommittees.” Id. Consistent with Barenblatt, the Second Circuit subsequently recognized that “[s]ection 192 applies to subcommittees as well as to committees of Congress.” United States v. Seeger, 303 F.2d 478, 482-84 & n. 8 (2d Cir.1962). The Supreme Court confirmed these circuit-court interpretations, acknowledging that
Section 1505‘s focal phrase is also contained in
The President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, or a chairman of any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or of a committee of the whole, or of any committee of either House of Congress, is empowered to administer oaths to witnesses in any case under their examination.
Rainey dismisses these authorities as articulating “dicta” and criticizes Barenblatt for “contraven[ing] ... the fundamental rules of statutory construction.” No party argues that these authorities are controlling, and Rainey‘s disagreements do not undermine their persuasive force. Moreover, Rainey makes no attempt to justify interpreting the language in
3.
Federal obstruction statutes, we have recognized, are “drafted with an eye to the variety of corrupt methods by which the proper administration of justice may be impeded or thwarted, a variety limited only by the imagination of the criminally inclined.” United States v. Griffin, 589 F.2d 200, 206 (5th Cir.1979) (internal quotation marks omitted) (interpreting
Notwithstanding these authorities, Rainey rejects any consideration of purpose as an impermissible tool of statutory construction of criminal statutes. To be clear, a statute‘s purpose may not override its plain language, but the Supreme Court has recognized that, even in a criminal case, a statute‘s purpose may be a “consideration [that] strongly support[s]” a textual interpretation:
[T]he statute as a whole reflects an intent to authorize federal prosecutions as a significant deterrent to a type of criminal activity that was a matter of national concern. Because that purpose is better served by construing the statute to cover both the conditional and the unconditional species of wrongful intent, the entire statute is consistent with a normal interpretation of the specific language that Congress chose.
Holloway, 526 U.S. at 9. Equally here, although unnecessary to our textual conclusion, the statute as a whole reflects an intent to deter obstruction of congressional investigations—a purpose consistent with interpreting subcommittee investigations as covered. See United States v. Cisneros, 26 F.Supp.2d 24, 38-39 (D.D.C.1998) (“The statutory purpose of
4.
In light of the above analysis, and because “we do not believe that there remains a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the statutory provision before us,” and do not need to “simply guess what the statute means,” we conclude that the district court erroneously invoked the rule of lenity. Barber v. Thomas, 560 U.S. 474, 488, 130 S.Ct. 2499, 177 L.Ed.2d 1 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also id. (“[T]he rule of lenity only applies if, after considering text, structure, history, and purpose, there remains a ‘grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the statute,’ such that the Court must simply ‘guess as to what Congress intended.‘” (internal citations omitted)); United States v. Pruett, 681 F.3d 232, 240 n. 4 (5th Cir.2012) (per curiam) (“We find no ‘grievous ambiguity’ in the ‘access’ requirement sufficient to apply the rule of lenity.“).
Rainey urges that the “grievous ambiguity” and “no more than a guess” language is “plainly ... not intended to be taken literally,” notwithstanding the previously mentioned authorities and the Supreme Court‘s recent reiteration of the standard in Maracich v. Spears:
In this framework, there is no work for the rule of lenity to do. This Court has held that “the rule of lenity only applies if, after considering text, structure, history, and purpose, there remains a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the statute such that the Court must simply guess as to what Congress intended.”
Id. at 76 (quoting Barber, 560 U.S. at 488-89). Nonetheless, even under the articulation of the rule of lenity most favorable to Rainey, we find that
5.
Nor does our conclusion leave
The question of whether a given congressional investigation is a “due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry” for purposes of § 1505 can not be answered by a myopic focus on formality. Rather, it is properly answered by a careful examination of all the surrounding circumstances. If it is apparent that the investigation is a legitimate exercise of investigative authority by a congressional committee in an area within the committee‘s purview, it should be protected by § 1505. While formal authorization is certainly a factor that weighs heavily in this determination, its presence or absence is not dispositive. To give § 1505 the protective force it was intended, corrupt endeavors to influence congressional investigations must be proscribed even when they occur prior to formal committee authorization.
Mitchell, 877 F.2d at 300-01.6 With this discernment in mind, we observe that un-
IV.
As an alternative ground for dismissing count one, the district court held that the Government failed properly to allege an essential element of
The district court held that “implication of facts supporting an essential element of the crime charged does not pass muster under the Fifth Amendment,” but our cases have clarified that “[w]e are not concerned with whether the indictment could have been better framed, or whether it invokes a particular ‘ritual of words,’ and that ‘an exact recitation of an element of the charged crime is not required, provided the indictment as a whole ‘fairly imports’ the element.” United States v. Harms, 442 F.3d 367, 372 (5th Cir.2006). The district court relied heavily on Walker v. United States, 342 F.2d 22, 26-27 (5th Cir.1965), for the proposition that an element may not be implied in an indictment. In United States v. Romero, however, we explained:
In Walker, the indictment was unclear, if not misleading, as to the object of the fraudulent activity. Count II of the indictment here was clear and complete, and permits of no misapprehension as to the elements of the offense charged. It is this, not the use of some talismanic phrase, that Walker requires.
Id. at 1359. Subsequent cases have embraced Romero‘s and Harms‘s less formalistic analysis of indictments, recognizing that “[t]he validity of an indictment is governed by practical, not technical considerations.” United States v. Ramos, 537 F.3d 439, 459 (5th Cir.2008); see, e.g., United States v. Franco, 632 F.3d 880, 884 (5th Cir.2011) (per curiam) (“Generally, an indictment that closely tracks the language under which it is brought is sufficient to give a defendant notice of the crimes with which he is charged.“); United States v. Henry, 288 F.3d 657, 662 (5th Cir.2002) (“While it is true that the allegations may not necessarily encompass a finding of knowledge, we have determined that a knowledge requirement may be inferred.“); United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 174, 179 (5th Cir.1989) (“[T]he law does not compel a ritual of words, and a
This indictment does not “exact[ly] recit[e]” that Rainey knew a congressional investigation was pending, but “the indictment as a whole ‘fairly imports’ the element.” Harms, 442 F.3d at 372. The indictment tracks the language of the statute and additionally provides the following factual allegations that “permit[] of no misapprehension as to the elements of the offense charged.” Romero, 495 F.2d at 1359.
- “Following the Deepwater Horizon blowout, the Subcommittee commenced an inquiry and investigation of the blowout and oil spill, including the amount of oil flowing from the well. Congress‘s inquiry and investigation included, among other things, requests for information from BP.”
- “On or about May 4, 2010, in response to a Congressional request for a briefing of members and staff of Congress, defendant RAINEY falsely informed the Subcommittee that 5,000 BOPD was the most accurate flow-rate estimate.”
- “On or about May 14, 2010, the then-Chairman of the Subcommittee (“the Subcommittee Chairman“) sent a letter to BP accusing it of understating the amount of oil leaking from the well.... The letter further stated that Congress was concerned that an ‘underestimation of the flow may be impeding the ability to solve the leak and handle management of the disaster. The Subcommittee requested answers to fifteen questions relating to flow rate....‘”
- “On or about May 21, 2010, defendant RAINEY began working on a response to the May 14 Congressional request.... Defendant RAINEY also prepared false and misleading responses to the Congressional request, and provided false and misleading information to others working on the BP Response.”
- “On or about May 24, 2010, BP submitted to the Subcommittee the BP Response, which appended the false and misleading Rainey Memo and its attachments, which were selected by defendant RAINEY.”
That Rainey knew of the pending congressional investigation is imported by these allegations; he spoke with members of the Subcommittee and personally manufactured BP‘s response to the congressional requests. As a whole, these allegations “fairly import” the knowledge element. See Harms, 442 F.3d at 372. We decline to require the technical use of “some talismanic phrase” in light of the allegations importing that Rainey knew of the investigation. Romero, 495 F.2d at 1359.
V.
Section 1505 criminalizes the “[o]bstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees.” Because the indictment adequately alleges that Rainey obstructed an investigation by a “committee of either House,”
STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
Notes
Id.The definition of “official proceeding” as used throughout § 1512 is found in
§ 1515(a)(1) . The relevant definition for our purposes lies in§ 1515(a)(1)(C) , which, after referring to proceedings before federal judges, the grand jury and Congress, states that an “official proceeding” means “a proceeding before a Federal Government agency which is authorized by law.”