With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a defendant’s conduct, however, is subject to de novo review. United States v. Moreno, 947 F.2d 7, 10 (1st Cir.1991). Cogswell alleges that the letter did not constitute an obstruction of justice because it was written after Lewis had already testified at trial and the trial had concluded. He also argues that the letter was not an attempt to influence Lewis because it was not directed at Lewis, Lewis never received it, and Cogswell had no reason to believe that Holmes would relay the threat to Lewis. Cogswell’s first contention lacks merit. It is irrelevant that, at the time Cogswell made the threat, the trial had already concluded, because sentencing was still pending and obstruct conclusion in Brooks notwithstanding, there is nothing in the text of the guidel 6 (2d Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Like the Tenth Circuit, we find this

A: holding that the district court should have quashed an indictment without requiring the target to show prejudice because the district attorney improperly exercised control over the selection and excusal of grand jurors and the defendant brought this to the attention of the district court before trial
B: holding that a note to a third party where the defendant never requested that the message be conveyed to the intended target was an attempt to keep the target from cooperating with the government and justified application of  3c11
C: holding that application note 6 is not mandatory
D: holding that where a third partys conduct is closely related to the contractual relationship or the contractual dispute and where the third party enjoys financial benefit from the contract the forum selection clause applies to the third party
B.