Abouammo v. United States · ¶10

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that venue was proper in California's Northern District because the FBI investigation took place there. Under this Court's precedents, the Ninth Circuit explained, venue is determined by identifying the “conduct constituting the offense”: A trial can be held wherever that proscribed conduct, in whole or part, took place. See 122 F. 4th 1072, 1090 (2024) (quoting United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U. S. 275, 279 (1999)). One “essential conduct element[ ]” of § 1519, the Ninth Circuit noted, is falsifcation of a document; here, that element would point to Seattle as a proper place for trial. 122 F. 4th, at 1090; see id., at 1092–1093. But (the court maintained) § 1519's intent requirement—i. e., “with the intent” to “obstruct” an investigation—makes the “contemplated effects” of the falsifcation another “part of the…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.