the error was harmless.” United States v. Zabielski, 711 F.3d 381, 389 (3d Cir.2013). Because we believe the District Court did not clearly err in finding that Waterman destroyed the hard drive on March 5, 2010, we need not determine whether the alleged error was harmless. Finally, in their briefs and at oral argument, Waterman and the Government also addressed the issue of whether timing is a relevant consideration for district courts applying the § 2J1.2(b)(2) enhancement. The Government contends that timing is irrelevant to the application of the enhancement, noting that courts have applied the enhancement to obstructive conduct that occurred well before the initiation of a potential judicial proceeding or investigation. See United States v. Amer, 110 F.3d 873, 885 (2d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). We are unconvinced by the Government’s
holding that the united states breach of the plea agreement releases the defendant from the appeal waiver holding that the constitutional rights in a termination proceeding  are derived from the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment of the united states constitution and not the sixth amendment holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants contacts with the united states as a whole support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states holding that the substantial interference enhancement properly applied to a defendant convicted of abducting his children and removing them from the united states notwithstanding the absence of an ongoing proceeding at the time of the abduction holding that the fourteenth amendment which makes persons bom in the united states and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the united states and requires that representatives be apportioned among the states based on population excluding indians not taxed did not make an indian a citizen of the united states