EPSTEIN
page 1 / 2083 . OCR, unverified
Dataset92 005
--- SOURCE: 0005__EFTA00089105.txt ---
METADATA_SOURCE: 0005
METADATA_FILENAME: EFTA00089105.pdf
----------------------------------------
From:
'lb:
Subject: Fwd: Staff Assignments
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2019 21:15:33 +0000
Sent from mobile device, please excuse typos.
Special Agent
Office of the Inspector General
Battery Park Plaza, 29th floor
New York NY 10004
Begin forwarded message:
From:
Date: August 11, 2019 at 4:51:26 PM EDT
To:
Subject: Staff Assignments
Below are the staff assignments on 8-10-2019.
-North Housing Unit Evening Shift 4-12 PM
st
r
i9cial Housing Unit#3 Officer PM Shift 2-10 PM
Not on Shift
Day Off
11-North Housing Unit Day Shift 8-4 PM
Day Off
Tova Noel Special Housing Unit#1 Officer Morning Shift 12:00 AM-8:00 AM
Michael Thomas Special Housing Unit#2 Officer Morning Shift 12:00 AM-8:00 AM
-Institution
Duty Officer
I am working on the job duties.
EFTA00089105
--- SOURCE: 0005__EFTA00089106.txt ---
METADATA_SOURCE: 0005
METADATA_FILENAME: EFTA00089106.pdf
----------------------------------------
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject: 18 U.S.C. 1519 Elements
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 01:56:58 +0000
--
Regarding your question on the 1519, here's our research and an overview of the charge:
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1519, in pertinent part, "[w]hoever knowingly . . . falsifies, or makes a false entry in . . . any
record [or] document . . . with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the ... proper administration of any matter
within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States ... or in relation to or contemplation of any such
matter" commits a twenty-year felony. Congress enacted § 1519 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act following the
prosecution of the accounting firm Arthur Andersen for its destruction of Enron-related documents. The statute "was
intended to prohibit, in particular, corporate document-shredding to hide evidence of financial wrongdoing." Yates v.
United States, 135 S. Ct. 1074, 1081 (2015). Nonetheless, the legislative history of the statute reflects the fact that
Congress "meant [the act] to apply broadly" and cover a wide range of "obstructive conduct." S. Rep. 107-146, 14-15
(2002). In Yates, which concerned whether a fish was a "tangible object" as used in the statute, the Supreme Court
rejected "reading § 1519 expansively to create a coverall spoliation of evidence statute" and instead held that "a 'tangible
object' within § 1519's compass is one used to record or preserve information." W. at 188-89. Ultimately, the restrictive
reading of "tangible object" in Yates does not affect the application of the statute here because the proposed charge
concerns the fabrication of a record or document, not a tangible object.
Thus, to prove a defendant violated § 1519, as is relevant here, the government must establish that (1) the
defendant knowingly falsified a record or document; (2) the defendant acted with intent to impede, obstruct, or influence
the administration of a matter, or in contemplation of a matter; and (3) the matter was within the jurisdiction of a
department or agency of the United States.
1. Falsification of Documents and Entries
Section 1519 criminalizes the knowing falsification of a document, or false entries on a form. While the statute
contained multiple verbs (e.g., "conceals: "creates a false entry," etc.), the "falsifies" charge is appropriate when a false
document is created, and the "false entry" charge is "usually reserved for entries made on pre-existing forms." United
States v. Schmeltz, 667 F.3d 685, 688 (6th Cir. 2011). Convictions for falsifying records or entries are upheld when the
records or entries contain misrepresentations or omissions. See United States v. Gray, 692 F.3d 514, 517-21 (6th Cir.2012)
(assuming without discussion that § 1519 covers omissions); United States v. Norman, 87 F. Supp. 3d 737, 743 (E.D. Pa.
2015) (collecting cases). Misrepresentations that are sufficient to support a § 1519 conviction include factual
misrepresentations about the occurrence of an event. See United States v. Yielding, 657 F.3d 688, 715-16 (8th Cir. 2011)
(backdating a document); United States v. Taohim, 529 F. App'x 969 (11th Cir. 2013) (omission of plastic discharge from
ship's garbage record book). As is relevant here, 1519 has been applied to false BOP reports. See, e.g., United States v.
Gray, 642 F.3d 371, 374 (2d Cir. 2011) (private prison guard charged for writing a false report regarding an assault); United
States v. Morris, 404 F. App'x 916 (5th Cir. 2010) (submitting a false use of force report before there was a pending
investigation); United States v. Hamilton, No. 15-CR-0240-TCB-LTW, 2016 WL 11432647, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 15, 2016),
report and recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 1696136 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 28, 2016) (false jail incident report).
2. Knowledge Requirement
Violations of § 1519 require that the defendant "knowingly ... falsifies, or makes a false entry in ... any record