# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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: 02/07/2023No. 21

- 40748

2 * * * Two years ago, Yaniuska Ordaz

- Echevarria was detained by Border Patrol agents during a routine stop at a highway checkpoint

. Ordaz

Echevarria

— 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, w anting 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, Ordaz

Echevarria “flung her arm around . . . aggressively” and started “jump[ing] up” and “kicking” her legs aroun d, 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 w ith 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 caus e the physical contact” that led to her charge.
Ordaz

- Echevarria correctly notes that, because she didn’t object to the jury instruction s 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 wh ole, 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: 02/07/2023No. 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 intentionall y.” 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, t he charge mirror ed this C ircuit’s pattern jury instruction s
. See **Fift h 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 An daverde

- 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 o f 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 W e **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 t he 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 Ordaz

Echevarria’s requested instruction. United States v. Wright , 634 F.3d 770, 774 (5th Cir. 20 11) (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