United States v. Kenneth M. Senffner

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an SEC investigation was a proceeding for purposes of section 1505
• holding that, by obstructing the SEC’s prosecution, Senffner had also obstructed “the SEC’s initial investigation and enforcement of securities law violations (an SEC proceeding), which sought the return of the funds”
• noting the authority to “issue subpoenas and administer oaths” was relevant in the investigatory context
• recounting how the term “proceeding” in § 1505 “is defined rather broadly”
• “[W]henever an entity acting for or at the direct request 9 of an agency has been obstructed, the agency itself has also been obstructed.”
• “An SEC investigation is a ‘proceeding’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).