That works for us, thanks. Could you please send us a conference line? Thanks, Sent from my iPhone On Sep 21, 2020, at 9:48 PM, Kathleen E. Cassidy Hi Would 4:30 on Wednesday work for you all? Thanks, Kate wrote: From: Sent: ri ay, eptem er : To: Kathleen E. Cassidy Cc: Samidh Guha Susan Necheles (USANYS) Subject: Re: Section 1512 Hi Kate, Thanks very much. We are free for a call on Wednesday at 3 p.m. or later. Would that work for you? Thanks, Sent from my iPhone On Sep 18, 2020, at 9:54 AM, Kathleen E. Cassidy wrote: Hi Yes, thank you for your email. Can we schedule a call for mid-week next week? What works for you guys? Thanks, Kate From: Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 12:49 PM To: Samidh Guha • Kathleen E. Cassidy < ; Susan Necheles Subject: RE: Section 1512 Hi all, I'm following up on my email below to confirm that you've received it. If you have any questions, please let us know. We are available for a call next week if you're ready to discuss further. Thanks, EFTA00019123

From Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 12:21 PM To: 'Samidh Guha' Necheles' Subject: RE: Section 1512 All, 'Kathleen E. Cassidy' ; 'Susan Following up on your questions about 18 U.S.C. § 1510, we wanted to let you know that it is our understanding that Section 1510 requires proof that the defendant knew the relevant law enforcement official was in fact a federal law enforcement official. See United States v. Escalera, 957 F.3d 122, 131 n.11 (2d Cir. 2020) (citing United States v. Grande, 620 F.2d 1026,1036-37 (4th Cir. 1980) ("We read this legislative history to articulate a congressional intention that one may be found to have violated § 1510 only upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt, inter alia, that the person who was intimidated, threatened, or harmed was about to communicate information to another known by the accused to be a federal criminal investigator.")). By contrast, as we have discussed, Section 1512(b)(3) has no such requirement. If you have a different view of that issue or if there are any authorities you would like us to review, we'd be happy to look more closely at the issue. Please let us know if you have any questions, or if a call would be useful to discuss. Thanks, From: Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 12:46 PM To: Samidh Guha Kathleen E. Cassidy • >; Susan Necheles • • Subject: Section 1512 Hi all, Following up on our conversation last week, we wanted to send you two cases that we believe bear directly on the question you raised regarding Section 1512(b)(3). We're happy to discuss further when we speak tomorrow, but we wanted to send these to you in advance in case that's useful. Thanks, EFTA00019124

EFTA00019125