The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit upheld on Friday the conviction of former Capitol Police officer Michael Riley for obstructing the investigation into the January 6 Capitol riots.

The court summarised the lower court’s fact-finding, stating that Riley had tipped off Jacob Hiles, one of the rioters, about potential charges against individuals in the Capitol on the day. Riley also urged Hiles to delete a Facebook post in which he admitted to being inside the building. Additionally, Riley deleted the facebook messages and phone calls record between them in an effort to conceal their communications from investigators.

Under 18 US Code § 1512(c)(1), it is a felony to corruptly destroy or attempt to do “with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding[.]” The court elaborated that proving intent requires proving “that an official proceeding was at least foreseeable to the defendant when he engaged in the obstructive conduct.”

Riley first challenged the indictment, arguing that it did not specifically mention any official proceeding he allegedly intended to obstruct. The court rejected his challenge, noting that the indictment alleged that Riley’s conduct were meant to interfere with a criminal investigation, which would lead to a federal grand jury proceeding.

Riley also contested his guilty verdict for insufficient evidence. However, the court disagreed because Riley explicitly messaged Hiles that he foresaw felony charges for all the rioters–something Riley, as a Capitol Police officer, should have known would require grand jury indictments. The court further noted Riley’s attempt to cover up his involvement by instructing Hiles to delete his Facebook post and erasing their messages after Hiles was arrested.

Another challenge from Riley focused on a claim that the prosecution’s evidence prejudicially deviated from the allegations in the indictment. Riley argued that the prosecution because the prosecution used evidence of Riley’s desire to protect himself instead of Riley’s desire to protect Hiles. The court rejected this challenge, stating that Riley’s underlying motive was irrelevant to the intent element of his conviction.

Riley also argued that the district court abused its discretion by partially denying his request for delivery. Specifically, he sought documents concerning the grand jury proceedings mentioned in the indictment, internal FBI communications, and the scope of the January 6 grand jury investigation. The court dismissed this challenge, ruling that the requested evidence was irrelevant to whether Riley had intended to obstruct an official proceeding.

Lastly, Riley claimed that the district court conducted the trial with “the appearance of partiality.” The court rejected the challenge as well, noting that Riley’s objections were merely disagreements with unfavorable rulings, not evidence of bias that would render a “fair judgment impossible.”

Riley’s only remaining option to avoid his sentence of twenty four months probation and a $10,100 government fee is to request a review from the US Supreme Court.