United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-40748

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Yaniuska Ordaz-Echevarria, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:21-CR-190-1

Before Smith, Clement, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Yaniuska Ordaz-Echevarria was convicted of assaulting a federal 

officer. On appeal, she argues the district court didn’t instruct the jury on any 

intent requirement. But, the district court informed the jury that—regarding 

the assault—Ordaz-Echevarria must’ve committed “such acts 

intentionally.” So, we AFFIRM.

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 7, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-40748 Document: 00516637976 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/07/2023
No. 21-40748

2

* * *

Two years ago, Yaniuska Ordaz-Echevarria was detained by Border 

Patrol agents during a routine stop at a highway checkpoint. OrdazEchevarria—an alien Cuban citizen illegally in the United States—became 

frustrated by the development. Ordaz-Echevarria “became angry,” “started 

yelling” at the federal agents, and “[v]ociferously protest[ed] her 

detention.” At that time, wanting to “avoid any other confrontation” with a 

“visibly and verbally angry” Ordaz-Echevarria, the federal agents tried to 

place her in a holding cell. But, “things got messy.” In response, OrdazEchevarria “flung her arm around . . . aggressively” and started “jump[ing] 

up” and “kicking” her legs around, knocking computer equipment off the 

nearby tables. When the officers tried to handcuff her, Ordaz-Echevarria

continued the fiasco by “throwing her arms everywhere.” During the scuffle, 

two agents were struck. Consequently, Ordaz-Echevarria was charged with 

assaulting a federal officer under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) and convicted. On 

appeal, Ordaz-Echevarria doesn’t deny her conduct, but instead argues that 

the district court failed to instruct the jury that—under 18 U.S.C. § 111—she 

had to “intend[] to cause the physical contact” that led to her charge. 

Ordaz-Echevarria correctly notes that, because she didn’t object to 

the jury instructions at trial, we review for plain error. United States v. Boyd, 

773 F.3d 637, 644 (5th Cir. 2014). To establish plain error, Ordaz-Echevarria

must point to a forfeited error that is clear and affected her substantial rights. 

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). For jury instructions, 

“plain error occurs only when the instruction, considered as a whole, was so 

clearly erroneous as to result in the likelihood of a grave miscarriage of 

justice.” United States v. Andaverde-Tinoco, 741 F.3d 509, 516 (5th Cir. 2013) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Case: 21-40748 Document: 00516637976 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/07/2023
No. 21-40748

3

Here, Ordaz-Echevarria’s argument fails for two reasons. First, the 

district court did provide an instruction on intent. Specifically, the judge told 

the jury that, when considering whether Ordaz-Echevarria assaulted a federal 

officer, it must find that the “Defendant did such acts intentionally.” As a 

result, Ordaz-Echevarria’s appeal is factually flawed. Second, and relatedly, 

the district court’s instructions aren’t legally wrong or clearly erroneous. As 

an initial matter, the charge mirrored this Circuit’s pattern jury instructions. 

See Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions § 2.07 (2019). “It 

is well-settled . . . that a district court does not err by giving a charge that 

tracks this Circuit’s pattern jury instructions and that is a correct statement 

of the law.” United States v. Richardson, 676 F.3d 491, 507 (5th Cir. 2012);

see also Andaverde-Tinoco, 741 F.3d at 516 (finding instruction that was 

“almost identical to the charge found in the . . . Pattern Jury Instructions”

wasn’t clearly erroneous). Moreover, the instruction is a correct statement 

of the law. 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1); United States v. Young, 464 F.2d 160, 163 

(5th Cir. 1972) (finding intent is required). Because the district court’s

instruction was correct and clearly informed the jury of the elements of the 

charged crime, there’s no error that is “subject to reasonable dispute.”

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009) (citation omitted); see also 

United States v. Fairley, 880 F.3d 198, 208 (5th Cir. 2018) (citation 

omitted).1 We AFFIRM.

1 Ordaz-Echevarria also argues that the district court erred by refusing to submit 

the entirety of her theory-of-defense instruction. But, her defense—that she didn’t intend 

to strike the officers—was substantially covered by the judge’s instructions discussed 

above. So, the district court didn’t abuse its discretion by omitting a portion of OrdazEchevarria’s requested instruction. United States v. Wright, 634 F.3d 770, 774 (5th Cir. 

2011) (finding district courts have “substantial latitude” in instructing the jury); United 

States v. Comstock, 974 F.3d 551, 557 (5th Cir. 2020) (holding that challenger must 

demonstrate the requested instruction was “not substantially covered in the charge as a 

whole”). 

Case: 21-40748 Document: 00516637976 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/07/2023