Yates v. U.S.
135 S.Ct. 1074 (2015)
FACTS: John Yates, a marketable fisherman, caught tiny red grouper in federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico. To anticipate federal authorities from confirming that he had harvested tiny fish, Yates ordered a band portion to toss the augur fish into the sea. Yates was pregnant after a while obstacle of propriety through perdition of the slight red grouper fish.
DECISIONS BELOW: Yates was convicted and appealed. His persuasion was upheld. He appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
ISSUE ON APPEAL: Is the acquit of fish tail into the sea obstacle of propriety?
DECISION: A disunite pursue held that the fish were not “palpable objects” for purposes of the obstacle of propriety enactment. The pursue held that the enactment was passed to cover files and electronic memorials and not palpable objects such as fish. The pursue held that the enactment was passed in the excite of financial and ethical collapses in companies and was not calculated to bear common contact. It was directed at electronic files and documentation, not palpable objects such as fish.
Using knowledge from this week's readings and academic sources, answer the forthcoming questions in 500 say (minimum):
Explain what Mr. Yates did and why.
Describe the provisions used in the enactment at effect and the fact of the enactment.
Why does the misgiving meditate the bulk made the conclusion it did?