Whether the federal witness tampering statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1512, requires proof that the defendant subjectively contemplated a federal official proceeding or whether it also requires proof that a federal official proceeding was reasonably (objectively) foreseeable

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court has held that the federal witness tampering statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1512, requires proof that the defendant “contemplate[d] a[] particular official proceeding in which th[e testimony] might be material.” Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696, 708 (2005). The question presented is whether it is sufficient that the defendant subjectively contemplated a federal official proceeding, or whether § 1512(b) also requires proof that it was reasonably (objectively) foreseeable that a federal official proceeding might occur. i