Venue for §1519 lies exclusively where the falsification occurred, not where the investigation is located.

1. The question: Whether a defendant charged with violating 18 U.S.C. §1519—which criminalizes knowingly falsifying a document with intent to obstruct a federal investigation—may be tried in the district where the investigation is located, or only in the district where the falsification occurred. 2. Relevant constitutional text: Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 provides that 'Trial of all Crimes ... shall be held in the State where the Crimes shall have been committed.' The Sixth Amendment entitles the accused to a jury 'of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.' 3. Ratification-era understanding: The venue clauses were designed to protect defendants from being hauled to distant, potentially hostile forums. Venue must be fixed by the 'act' that constitutes the crime, not by the location of any downstream effects. The Constitution does not permit venue to follow the victim or the investigation; it follows the criminal conduct. 4. The holding: A defendant charged under §1519 must be tried in the district where the falsification occurred. The statute's only prohibited act is the knowing falsification of a document. The mens rea of 'intent to obstruct' does not transform the investigation's location into a venue-conferring event. The trial in this case should have been in the Western District of Washington, where Abouammo falsified the invoice, not in the Northern District of California. 5. What changes downstream: Courts must now dismiss §1519 indictments for improper venue if no act of falsification occurred in the district. Prosecutors must bring §1519 charges in the district of falsification, even if investigation activity or obstructive effects are elsewhere. This holding does not affect venue for other obstruction crimes (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §1503, §1512) whose conduct elements differ.