Whether the nexus element for obstruction requires knowledge that the defendant's conduct will affect an existing or foreseeable proceeding

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. In Marinello v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1101, 1109-10 (2018), the Court held that, to prove obstruction, the government must show that the defendant’s efforts had a nexus to a particular proceeding and that the proceeding itself was pending or “reasonably foreseeable by the defendant.” After Marinello, does the nexus element require a mens rea of: (a) knowledge that the defendant’s conduct will affect an existing investigatory proceeding, as the Sixth Circuit has held; (bi) knowledge that the conduct will affect a foreseeable proceeding, as the Fourth and Eighth Circuits have held; or (c) no knowledge as to how the conduct will affect a foreseeable proceeding, as the Ninth Circuit held in this case? 2. The Court and a vast majority of circuits agree that a waiver of one’s Miranda rights must be knowing and intelligent, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. Does the Ninth Circuit’s factor-based tests for determining a waiver’s validity improperly narrow this test? prefix PARTIES,