FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT MAY 17, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 13429 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 2 0 8 7 7 - C R - K MM U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s O S C A R M A R T I N E Z , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 17, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

D e f e nda ntO s c a rM a r t i ne z appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on f orf or c i bl y a s s a ul t i ng a f e de r a l of f i c e r , i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 111( a ) ( 1) . M a r t i ne z a l s o appe a l s the r e s t i tu t i o n o r d e ri n h i s s e n t e n c e . A f t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. I . B AC KG RO UN D D e f e n d a n t M a r tin e z is a p r is o n e ra t th e F e d e r a l D e te n tio n C e n te r( “F D C ” ) in M i a m i , F l or i da . A gr a nd j ur y i ndi c t e d M a r t i ne z f orf or c i bl y a s s a ul t i ng a c o r r e c tio n a l o f

f ic e ra t th e F D C b y s tr ik in g th e o f f ic e r ’s f a c e a n d b o d y w ith a liq u id thatw as or appeare d t o b e uri ne, i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1 11 (a )( 1). A . T r i al A ttr i a l , th e g o v e r n me n tc a l l e d O f f i c e rJ o r g e G i r a l d o , a n FD C M i a mi c o r r e c tio n s o f

f ic e r . G ir a ld o d e s c r ib e d th e c e lls in th e S p e c ia l H a n d lin g U n it ( “ S H U ” ) , w hi c h ha d a doorw i th a w i ndow a nd a f ood s l otw i de e nough t o put hand s throu gh . G i ra l do t es t i fi ed that , on O ct ob er25 , 20 02 , he and O ff i ce r D ani el P ar od i w er e bri ng i ng l i nens t o t he S H U ce l l s w hen D ef endantM ar t i nez, w ho w as a l one i n hi s c e l l , r e que s t e d a t ow e l . A s G i r a l do turne d t o ge tthe t ow e l , he he a r d a c om m ot i on a nd D e f

e nda ntM a r t i ne z y e l l i ng, “ I goty ou m othe r f uc ke r . ” G i r a l do s a w M a r tin e z s ta n d in g w ith h is h a n d s o u ts id e th e f o o d s lo t, s p r a y in g a liq u id a ll o v e rP a r o d i. T h e liq u id w a s in a b o ttle o f V O 5 . G ir a ld o p u s h e d M a r tin e z ’s h a n d s b a c k in to th e c e ll a n d c lo s e d th e f o o d s lo t.3

A s m a ll a m o u n t o f

th e liq u id a ls o g o t o n G ir a ld o ’s s h ir t. G ir a ld o th o u g h t th e liq u id w as uri ne because of i t s s m el l and b ec ause he, af t ercl osi ng the food sl ot , sa w M a r t i ne z ur i na t e i nt o a nothe rbott l e a nd s a y , “ I gotm or e f ory ou. ” A f

t e rthe i n c i d e n t , D e f

e n d a n tM a r t i n e z ap o l o g i z e d t o G i r a l d o f o rg e tt i n g u r i n e o n h i m, s t a t i ng tha tthe ur i ne w a s notm e a ntf orhi m . A ppa r e nt l y , the ur i ne w a s m e a ntf or o n ly P a r o d i, w h o w a s s p r a y e d f ir s t. O n c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n , G ir a ld o s ta te d th a t a ll a r e a s o f th e S H U w e r e w ith in o b s e r v a tio n o f

c a m e r a s , w h ic h w e r e m o v a b le . H o w e v e r , G ir a ld o d id n o t k n o w if the ca m er as w er e turned o n o r w hether, on the dat e of the i nci dent , they w er e f a c i ng the c e l l door s . G i r a l do a dm i tt e d tha the di d notknow w he the rthe i nc i de nt ha d be e n vi de ot ape d. T h e g o v e r n m e n t a ls o c a lle d O f f ic e rP a r o d i to te s tif

y . A c c o r d in g to P a r o d i, M ar t i nez w as angry w i th h i m on the day of the i nci dentbeca use M ar t i nez bl am ed P ar od i for l osi ng hi s posi t i on as an orderl y, w hi ch had g i ven M ar t i nez s peci al pri vi l eges . P ar od i as ked G i ra l do t o ass i sthi m w i th t he l i nen exchang e a t M a r t i ne z ’ s c e l l be c a us e he kne w M a r t i ne z w a s a ngr y w i th hi m a nd P a r odi di d not w an tp ro b l em s. A s P aro d i an d G i ral d o b eg an t o ex ch an g e M art i n ez’ s l i n en s, D e f e nda ntM a r t i ne z s que e z e d the l i qui d c ont e nt s of a bott l e a tP a r odi . T he l i qui d, w h i ch sm el l ed l i k e u ri n e, co v ered P aro d i ’ s en t i re ch estan d g o ti n h i s m o u th , n o se4

a n d e y e s . A f t e rhe s pr a y e d P a r odi , D e f e nda ntM a r t i ne z l a ughe d a nd s a i d, “ I f i na l l y got y ou, m othe r f

uc ke r . ” M a r t i ne z the n s a i d, “ I gotm or e f ory ou, c om e on i n. ” P a r odi s a w th r e e b o ttle s o f

w h a t ap p e a r e d to b e u r in e in M a r tin e z ’s c e ll. Pa r o d i w a s h e d h i s f

a c e , e y e s , mo u th a n d c h e s ta n d w e n tt o th e FD C M i a mi d o c to r . P a r o d i e x p la in e d th a t h e w a s c o n c e r n e d b e c a u s e h e d id n o t k n o w if M ar t i nez had a com m un i cabl e di se as e. A ft erP ar od i w as eval uat ed by m edi ca l s t a f f a tF D C M i a m i , he w e ntt o a hos pi t a l t o ha ve a bl ood c he c k be c a us e he di d not k n o w M a r t i n e z ’ s me d i c a l h i s t o r y . Pa r o d i h a s n o te x p e r i e n c e d a n y h e a l th p r o b l e ms a s a r e s u lt o f

th e in c id e n t. O n cross -e xam i nat i on , P ar od i t es t i fi ed thatca m er as w er e posi t i on ed t o cov er al l ar ea s of the S H U , exce pti nsi de the ce l l s. H ow ever , P ar od i w as no tsure w hether the ca m er as w er e a l w ay s on o r i f they w er e s up po se d t o b e on. W hen a s ke d i f a n i nc i de nts uc h a s the one a ti s s ue c oul d be on vi de ot ape , P a r odi re spon ded, “ I bel i eve s o. ” P ar od i di d n otkn ow i f the i nci denthad b ee n v i deot aped ori f the c a m e r a s w e r e c onne c t e d t o a vi de o r e c or di ng de vi c e . T he gove r nm e nt r e s te d , a n d D e f

e n d a n t M a r tin e z p r e s e n te d n o w itn e s s e s . B . C l osi n g A rgu m en ts P r i ort o c l os i ng a r gum e nt s , D e f e nda ntM a r t i ne z c ont e nde d tha the s houl d beOf fens eIns tr

uc tio n 1 .1 of

theEl e venth

Circ uit Pattern Jury Ins tr uc tio ns (C rimin a l) 1 provides that a de fenda

nt can befound guilty

under § 111( a)( 1) if the f ollowing f

acts a re proven beyon d a re a so na bledo ub t: ( 1) “ [t]hat th eDe fend ant ‘ fo rc ibly a ssa ult e d’ thepers on

de sc ribe d in the indictment, as that term is hereinaf ter de fined” ; (2) “[t]hat the person assaulted w as a F ederal officer . . . then eng ag ed in the performanc e of a n official duty , as cha

rg ed”; a nd (3) “ [t ]hat the De fend ant ac te d k

no wing ly and wi llf ully .”Of fens eIns tr

uc tio n 1 .1 fu

rt her de fine s “ fo rc ibl e assault” in full as “ any

willful threat or attempt to infli ct serious bodily injury upon someone else, when coupled with an a pparent present a

bility to do so, and includes any intentional display of force that would givea re asonableperson c ause to e xpect immediate a nd serious bodily

harm or death even though the threat or attempt is not actually car ried out and thevictim is not actually injured.” 5 a b le to a r g u e th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t h a d f a ile d to p r o d u c e a v id e o tap e o f th e in c id e n t. T he di s tr i c tc our trul e d tha tM a r t i ne z c oul d notm a ke thi s a r gum e nti n c l os i ng beca use there w as no evi dence thatthe ca m er as i n t he S H U coul d rec ord o r w er e m e r e ly f o rm o n ito r in g , o rth a t th e c a m e r a s h a d in f a c t r e c o r d e d th e in c id e n t. C . J ur y I ns t r uc t i o ns P ri or t o t ri al , the go vernm entfi l ed a m ot i on re qu es t i ng thatthe di stri ctcourt m o d if y th e E le v e n th C ir c u it p a tte r n ju r y in s tru c tio n ’s d e f in itio n o f f o r c ib le a s s a u lt, w hi ch address es ca se s i nv ol vi ng threa t s or a tt em pt s butno tany a ctual ph ys i ca l cont ac t . T he go vernm entre qu es t ed that“ forc i bl e a ss aul t ” be defi ned as “ an

1 a s s a u lt w h ic h r e s u lts in p h y s ic a l c o n ta c t, b u t w h ic h d o e s n o t in v o lv e a d e a d ly w e ap o n o rb o d ily h a r m .” T he go vernm ental so ar gu ed that , beca use § 11 1 i s ageneral i nt entst atut e, the pa tt e r n j ur y i ns truc t i on’ s s pe c i f i c i nt e ntde f

i ni t i on of “ w i l l f ul l y ” s houl d not6

ap p ly . I n s te a d , th e g o v e r n m e n t r e q u e s te d th a t th e in s tru c tio n b e m o d if ie d to s ta te tha tthe gove r nm e ntne e de d t o pr ove tha t“ the a c tw a s done vol unt a r i l y a nd i nt ent i on al l y a nd no tbeca use of m i st ake or ac ci dent . ” A t th e c lo se o f th e e v id en ce , th e d istrict co u rt g ra n ted th e g o v er n m en t’ s r e que s t s ove rD e f

e nda ntM a r t i ne z ’ s obj e c t i ons . A f t e rc l os i ng a r gum e nt s , the d i stri ctco u rti n stru ct ed th e j u ro rs as th e g o v ern m en treq u est ed , as fo l l o w s:

T i t l e 18, U ni t ed S t at es C od e, S ec t i on 11 1, m akes i t a fe dera l c r im e o ro f

f e n s e f o ra n y b o d y to f

o r c ib ly a s s a u lt a f

e d e r a l o f f ic e rw h ile th e o ffi cer i s en g ag ed i n th e p erfo rm an ce o f o ffi ci al d u t i es. Y ou a r e i ns truc t e d t h at a c orr e c t i ona l of f i c e ri s one of

the f ed eral of

f i c e r s r e f e r r e d t o i n tha tl a w . A de f e nda ntc a n be f

ound gui l ty of tha tof f e ns e of a s s a ul t i ng a f

e de r a l of

f i c e ronl y i f

a l l the f o llo w in g f

a c ts a r e p r o v e d b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t: F i rs t , thatthe defend antforc i bl y a ss aul t ed the pers on desc ri bed i n the i ndi c tm e nta s tha tt e r m i s he r e a f t e rde f i ne d; S ec on d, thatthe pers on as saul t ed w as a f eder al offi ce r, as d e s c r i b e d a b o v e , th e n e n g a g e d in th e p e r f o r m a n c e o f

a n o f f ic ia l d u ty a s c ha r ge d; A n d th i rd , th atth e d efen d an tact ed k n o w i n g l y an d w i l l fu l l y. T h e t erm fo rci b l e assau l tm ean s an assau l tw h i ch resu l t s in p h y s ic a l c o n ta c t w h ic h d o e s n o t in v o lv e a d e a d ly w e ap o n o rb o d ily h a r m.

. . . . T h e p h r a s e “k n o w in g ly a n d w ill f u l l y , ” a s th a t p h r a s e is u s e d in the i ndi c tm e ntori n the s e i ns truc t i ons , m e a ns tha tth e act w as done v o lu n ta r ily a n d in te n tio n a lly , a n d n o t b e c a u s e o f m is ta k e o ra c c id e n t. ( E m pha s i s a dde d) . M a r t i ne z r e ne w e d hi s obj e c t i ons t o the j ur y i ns truc t i ons . T he d i stri ctco u rtag ai n o v erru l ed h i s o b j ect i o n s. T h e j u ry fo u n d M art i n ez g u i l ty. D . Se nt e nc i ngWe reviewthe leg al cor rec tness of a jury

instruction de novo. United States v. Prather , 2 205 F.3d 1265, 1270 ( 11th Cir. 2000). District courts havebroad discretion in formulatingjury in s tr u c ti o n s , s o lo n ga s th ec h arg ea s a wh o lea c c urate ly

r e f le c tsth ela

wan d th ef a c ts . I d . We will not reversea convic tion on the basis of a jury charg e unless “theissues of law were pre sente d in a c c urate ly, o r t hec ha rg eimp roperly

guide d th ejur

y in s uc h a su bs tanti a l w ay

a s to violate due process.”I d. (quotation marks a nd citation omitted). 7 A cc ordi ng t o t he pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” ), P ar od i prov i ded m e d ic a l b ills s h o w in g $ 1 ,8 0 1 .6 3 in lo s s e s . P a r o d i’s lo s s e s r e s u lte d f r o m v is its to hi s phy s i c i a n a nd the e m e r ge nc y r oom a nd l a b w or k f ort e s t i ng of

di s e a s e s tha the coul d h ave c on tra ct ed fr om D ef endantM ar t i nez’ s a ct i on s. T he P S I r ec om m ended tha tM a r t i ne z pa y $1, 801. 63 i n r e s t i tut i on. A ts e nt e nc i ng, M a r t i ne z obj e c t e d, a r gui ng tha the s houl d notha ve t o pa y f or P ar od i ’ s m ea sure s t o ensure thathe w as no ti nj ured. T he di stri ctcourtordered M a r tin e z to p a y $ 1 ,8 0 1 .6 3 in r e s titu tio n . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s e n te n c e d M a r tin e z to 3 6 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t, to b e s e r v e d c o n s e c u tiv e to th e s e n te n c e M a r tin e z is c u r r e n tly s e r v in g , a n d o n e y e a ro f s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e . M a r tin e z f ile d th is ap p e a l. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . J ur y I ns t r uc t i o ns D e f e nda ntM a r t i ne z a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d i n gi vi ng the go vernm ent ’ s propo se d j ury i nstruct i on s on t he el em ent s of the offens e. 2 U nde r18 U . S . C . § 111( a ) , a pe r s on c om m i t s f or c i bl e a s s a ul ti f

tha tpe r s on forc i bl y a ss aul t s, re si st s, op po se s, i m pedes, i nt i m i dat es or i nt er fe re s w i th a fe dera lOn November 2, 2002, the maximumpenalty for “ all other c ases”of assa ult was 3 incre a se d toe ight ye ars ’ impriso nment, and themaximumpenalty

fo r a ssa ult s invo lvingtheus e of a de adly

or dang erous we apon wa s increa sed to twenty year s’ imprisonment. Federal Judiciary Protection Act of 2002, Pub. L . No. 107-273, § 11008(b) , 116 Stat. 1758, 1818 (2002). 8 of f i c e ri n the pe r f

or m a nc e of

hi s of f i c i a l dut i e s . S e c t i on 111 pr ovi de s f ordi f f e r e nt p en al t i es d ep en d i n g o n th e sev eri ty o f th e o ffen ses, as fo l l o w s: (a ) I n g e n e r a l -- W ho ever– ( 1) f or c i bl y a s s a ul t s , r e s i s t s , op p o s e s , i m pe de s , i nt i m i da t e s , or i nt er fe re s w i th any pers on d es ig n at ed [a s afe dera l offi ce r] w hi l e e ng aged i n o r on accountof the performance of o ff i ci al d u tie s ; . . .

. . . s h a ll, w h e r e th e a c ts in v io la tio n o f th is s e c tio n c o n s titu te o n ly s im p le as saul t , be fi ned u nd erthi s t i t l e or i m pri soned n o t m o re than o ne ye ar , or bo th, and, i n al l ot her c as es , be fi ned u nd erthi s t i t l e or i m pr is on ed notm or e tha n thr e e y e a r s , orboth. (b) E n h a n c e d p e n a lt y . - - W h o e v e r , in th e c o m m is s io n o f a n y a c ts de s c r i be d i n s ubs e c t i on ( a ) , us e s a de a dl y orda nge r ou s w ea pon . . . or i nf l i c t s b o d i l y i nj ur y , s ha l l be f i ne d unde rthi s t i t l e ori m pr i s one d not m o re th an t en years. 18 U . S . C . § 111( a ) - ( b) ( 2002) . I n s um , § 111( a ) e s t a bl i s he s the s e c a t e gor i e s of 3 f or c i bl e a s s a ul t , e a c h w i th i t s ow n pe na l ty : ( 1) “ s i m pl e a s s a ul t , ” puni s ha bl e by not m ore than a ye arof i m pri sonm ent ; (2) “ al l ot her c as es ” of f orci bl e a ss aul t , w hi ch ar e pun i shabl e by notm ore than t hree ye ar s’ i m pri sonm ent ; and (3) “ al l ot her c a s e s ” of f or c i bl e a s s a ul tw he r e the de f e nda ntus e s a de a dl y orda nge r ous w e apon o r i n fl i ct s b o d i l y i n

j u ry, w h i ch are p u n i sh ab l e b y n o tm o re th an t en years’Most circuits view § 111 as c reating thre e categ ories of f orcible a ssault. See, e.g ., 4 Unite d St ate s v . H atha

wa y, 3 18 F .3 d 1 00 1, 10 08 (1 0th Cir . 2 00 3) ; Unit e d St ate s v . Ca mpb e ll, 259 F.3d 293, 296 ( 4th Cir. 2001); United States v. McCulligan, 256 F .3d 97, 102 (3d Cir. 2001); United States v. Ramirez, 233 F.3d 318, 321 ( 5th Cir. 2000), overr uled on other grounds by United States v. L ong oria, 298 F .3d 367, 372 & n.6 ( 5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Chestaro, 197 F .3d 600, 606 (2d Cir. 1999). Onecircuit, however , notes that “the c onduct pre sc ribe d b y

§ 1 11 (b ) doe s n ot f

or m a third dis tin c t c ate g or

y , b ut i s a su bc ate g or y of the‘all oth e r c a se s’ c on du c t.”Unite d St ate s v . Y ate s, 30 4 F .3 d 8 18 , 8 23 (8 th C ir . 2 00 2) . Thec irc uit s vary as to whether physical contact is require d for the se cond categ ory of forcible assa

ult. See infra note7. Other c irc uit s h avea lso loo ke d tothec omm on law de finition

to de fine“ sim

plea ssa ult” 5 in § 1 1 1 ( a) c a s e s . Se e , e . g . , Y ate s , 3 0 4 F . 3 d at 8 2 1 - 2 2 ; M c Cull ig an , 2 5 6 F . 3 d at 1 0 2 ; Ramir e z, 233 F.3d at 321; Chestaro, 197 F.3d at 605. In B onner v . Ci ty

of Pric ha rd , 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 09 (1 1th Cir . 1 98 1) (en b anc ), thi s 6 Court adopted as bindingprec edent all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down prior to October

1, 1981. 9 im p r is o n m e n t. 4 I n th e s ta tu to r y la n g u a g e o f § 1 1 1 ( a ) C o n g r e s s d id n o t d e f in e “s im p le a s s a ul t ” orthe di f

f e r e nc e be tw e e n a f

or c i bl e a s s a ul ttha ts houl d be c ons i de r e d a “s im p le a s s a u lt” a n d a n “a ll o th e rc a s e s ” f o r c ib le a s s a u lt. H o w e v e r , in a r e c e n t § 111( a ) c a s e , thi s C our tdi s c us s e d the di f f e r e nc e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F a l l e n, 256 F .3 d 1 0 8 2 , 1 0 8 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . I n F a lle n , th is C o u r t f ir s t n o te d th a t s im p le a s s a ul ta tc om m on l a w “ i s de f i ne d a s ‘ a w i l l f

ul a tt e m ptt o i nf

l i c ti nj ur y upon the pe r s on of

a nothe r , or. . . a thr e a tt o i nf l i c ti nj ur y upon the pe r s on of a nothe rw hi c h, w he n c oupl e d w i th a n appa r e ntpr e s e nta bi l i ty , c a us e s a r e a s ona bl e appr e he ns i on of i m m ed i at e b o d i l y h arm . ’ ” Id . (em p h asi s ad d ed ) (al t erat i o n i n o ri g i n al ); see al so 5 U ni t ed S t at es v. R enfr o, 62 0 F . 2d 49 7, 50 0 (5t h C i r. 19 80 ). 6Som ec irc uit s h avec on c lude d th at th ese c on d c ate g or y of fo rc ibl ea ssa

ult (i .e ., the“ a ll 7 other c ases”of forcible assa ult) require s some touchingor physical contact. See, e .g ., McCulligan, 256 F .3d at 104 (re quiringproof of actual contact to sustain a c onviction for a § 111(a) offense beyond simple assault). However, theEighth Circuit in Yates, 304 F.3d at 822, likethi s Co ur

t in F a llen, ha s said t

hat a c tual physic a l c onta c t is no t re quire d in “ a ll o ther c a se s” of fo rc ibl ea ssa

ult . Ra ther, theEi ghth

Circ uit c on c lude d th at “ a ll o ther c a se s”of fo rc ibl ea ssa

ult in § 11 1( a) inc lude s all o ther a ssa ult s th at areno t w ith in t

hec omm on

law de finition

of sim ple assault. Yate s, 304 F.3d at 823. We need not address whether a thre at or attempt to throw urine in someone’s mouth, 8 nose and eyes constitutes a thre at of serious bodily injury beca use, here, Mar

tinez actually

threw theurine , ma

kingphysic a l c onta c t w ithParo di. 10 T he F a l l e n C our ta l s o s a i d tha t“ a l l othe rc a s e s ” of f or c i bl e a s s a ul ti n § 11 1(a) “ have t o b e s om ethi ng m ore, such as a w i l l ful att em ptor threa tt o i nfl i ct s e r i ous bodi l y i nj ur y , c oupl e d w i th a n appa r e ntpr e s e nta bi l i ty , w hi c h c a us e s the i nt e nde d vi c t i m a r e a s ona bl e appr e he ns i on of i m m e di a t e s e r i ous bodi l y ha r m or death. ” F al l en, 25 6 F . 3d at10 88 (f i rs tem ph as i s a dd ed). F al l en i nv ol ved v erbal threa t s t o sho ottw o federa l offi ce rs w here there w as no ph ys i ca l cont ac t . Id. at 1087- 88. T he F a l l e n C our te xpr e s s l y r e j e c t e d the a r gum e nttha tthe s e c ond c a t e gor y of

f or c i bl e a s s a ul tm us ta l w a y s i nvol ve a c tua l phy s i c a l c ont a c t . I d. 7 F a lle n , h o w e v e r , d id n o t a d d r e s s th e p r o p e rc a te g o r y o f a § 1 1 1 ( a ) f

o r c ib le assau l tw h en th e assau l tco n d u ctati ssu e i n v o l v es p h ysi cal co n t act . N ev erth el ess, 8 every c i rc ui tt o add re ss the qu es t i on has hel d t hatan as saul tthati nv ol ves physi ca l c o n ta c t f a lls w ith in th e “a ll o th e rc a s e s ” p r o v is io n o f § 1 1 1 ( a ) a n d is n o t a “s im p le a s s a ul t ” unde r§ 111( a ) . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H a tha w a y , 318 F . 3d 1001, 1008- 09 ( 1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( in v o lv in g a d e f e n d a n t w h o p u s h e d a s o c ia l s e c u r ityBe causeMartinez’s offense involved physical contact, rather than thre ats of serious 9 bodily injury , his relianceon Fallen is mispl ace d. 11 adm i ni stra t i on agenti n t he ches tand g rabb ed hi s t i e, there by chok i ng hi m ); U ni t ed S t a t e s v. R a m i r e z , 233 F . 3d 318, 321- 22 ( 5th C i r . 2000) ( i nvol vi ng a de f e nda nt w h o th rew a cu p o f u ri n e/ feces at a correcti o n al o ffi ce, stri k i n g h i m i n th e ch est a nd l ow e rbody ) , ove r rul e d on othe rgr ounds by U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L ongor i a , 298 F . 3d 367, 372 & n. 6 ( 5th C i r . 2002) ( e n ba nc ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C he s t a r o, 197 F . 3d 600, 605- 06 ( 2d C i r . 1999) ( i nvol vi ng a de f e nda ntw ho w i e l de d a boxc utt e ra nd s truggl e d w i th pos t a l pol i c e of f i c e r s ) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. Y a t e s , 304 F . 3d 81 8, 82 2 (8t h C i r. 20 02 ) ( i nv ol vi ng a def endantw ho drov e aca r a tU ni t ed S t at es m ar shal s, bu tdi d n otm ake physi ca l cont ac tand l i m i t i ng “ si m pl e a ss aul t s” un der § 11 1(a) t o ass aul t s w i tho utph ys i ca l cont ac t ). T urni ng t o t hi s c as e, w e f i rs tno t e thatthe i nd i ctm entchar ged t hatM ar t i nez

“ kn ow i ng l y a nd i nt ent i on al l y di d forci bl y a ss aul t , re si st , op po se , i m pede, i nt i m i da t e , a nd i nt e r f

e r e w i th” a f

e de r a l c or r e c t i ona l of

f i c e r“ by phy s i c a l l y s tr i ki ng [ h im ] a b o u t th e f

a c e a n d b o d y w ith a liq u id th a t w a s o rap p e a r e d to b e u r in e ” in vi ol at i on of § 1 11 (a )( 1). In ot her w ords, M ar t i nez’ s c harged offense i nv ol ved ac tual ph ys i ca l cont ac tra ther than m er e threa t s or a tt em pt s t o i nfl i ctbo di l y i nj ury ( i . e . , “ s i m pl e a s s a ul t ” ) . A c c or di ngl y , w e a gr e e w i th ours i s t e rc i r c ui t s a nd 9 c o n c lu d e th a t M a r tin e z ’s o f f e n s e , w h ic h in v o lv e d a c tu a l p h y s ic a l c o n ta c t, f a llsSee supra note 1. 10 12 w ith in th e “a ll o th e rc a s e s ” p r o v is io n o f § 1 1 1 ( a ) a n d n o t w ith in th e “s im p le as saul t ” provi si on . F urtherm ore, si nce m i ni m al cont ac ti s s uffi ci entt o v i ol at e § 111( a ) , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H e r na nde z , 921 F . 2d 1569, 1577 ( 11th C i r . 1991) , the p h y s ic a l c o n ta c t n e e d n o t h a v e r e s u lte d in a c tu a l b o d ily in ju r y . W e a ls o r e

je c t M a r tin e z ’s a r g u m e n t th a t th e s e c o n d c a te g o r y o f f o r c ib le a s s a u lt a lw a y s r e q u ir e s a th r e a t to in f lic t s e r io u s b o d ily in

ju r y . W h ile a th r e a t to i nfl i ctse ri ou s bod i l y i nj ury w i tho utany a ctual ph ys i ca l cont ac ti s s uffi ci entun der F al l en t o est abl i sh an “ al l ot her c as es ” f orci bl e a ss aul t , an as saul tw i th actual p h y s ic a l c o n ta c t is a ls o s u f f ic ie n t to p r o v e a n “a ll o th e rc a s e s ” f o r c ib le a s s a u lt. T h e p at t ern j u ry i n stru ct i o n th atM art i n ez u rg ed th e d i stri ctco u rtt o u se a d d r e s s e s a n “a ll o th e rc a s e s ” f o r c ib le a s s a u lt in w h ic h a d e f e n d a n t m a k e s th r e a ts o r at t em p t s t o i n fl i ctseri o u s b o d i l y i n j u ry b u tn o actu al p h ysi cal co n t acto ccu rs. 10 T h atp at t ern j u ry i n stru ct i o n w as n o tap p ro p ri at e i n M art i n ez’ s p art i cu l ar case b e c a u s e h is o f

f e n s e in v o lv e d a c tu a l p h y s ic a l c o n ta c t r a th e rth a n th r e a ts o ra tte m p ts . T hu s, the di stri ctcourtprop er l y r ej ec t ed M ar t i nez’ s r equestt o g i ve thatpart i cul ar pat t ern j ury i nstruct i on and i nst ea d p roperl y def i ned a forci bl e a ss aul ti n h i s c as e a s “a n a s s a u lt w h ic h r e s u lts in p h y s ic a l c o n ta c t w h ic h d o e s n o t in v o lv e a d e a d ly w e apon orbodi l y ha r m . ” T he de f i ni t i on a s i ns truc t e d a c c ur a t e l y r e f l e c t e d theWe re view thesu ff ic ienc y of thee vide nc edeno vo , v iewingthee vide nc ein a light m os t 11 favorable to the g overnment and makingall rea sonable inferenc es and c redibility deter minations in favor of

the g overnment and the jury ’s verdict. United States v. Garcia, 405 F .3d 1260, 1269 (11th Cir. 2005). We likewise reje ct Martinez’s claim that the government wa s require d to prove that the 12 liquid thrown at Parodi was actually urine. Nonetheless, we notethat the g overnment presente d evidenc e that the liquid smelled like urine to Parodi a nd Giraldo, that Giraldo observed Ma rtinez urinatingin another bottle a nd saying “ Ig ot more for you” af ter spra ying theliquid, and that Martinez himself apolog ized to Giraldo for hitting him with urine. 13 appl i cabl e l aw gi ven t he evi dence pres ent ed i n M ar t i nez’ s c as e. M art i n ez al so arg u es th atth e d i stri ctco u rterred w h en i td efi n ed th e p h rase

“ know i ngl y a nd w i l l f

ul l y ” a s us e d i n the i ndi c tm e nta s “ done vol unt a r i l y a nd i nt ent i on al l y, and n otbeca use of m i st ake or ac ci dent . ” M ar t i nez’ s c on t ent i on that thi s i nstruct i on m od i fi ed the offens e f rom a s peci fi c i nt entoffe nse t o a general i nt entoffe nse i s w i tho utm er i tand w e nee d n otdi sc uss i tfurther. S ee U ni t ed S ta te s v . E ttin g e r , 3 4 4 F .3 d 1 1 4 9 , 1 1 5 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( r e c o g n iz in g th a t s p e c if ic i nt enti s notan el em entof a § 11 1 o ff ense ). B . S u ff

i ci en cy of th e E vi d en ce M a r t i ne z a l s o a r gue s tha tthe gove r nm e ntf a i l e d t o pr ove be y ond a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t th a t h e in te n d e d to in f lic t s e r io u s b o d ily in

ju r y to P a r o d i. T h is 11 ar gu m enthi ng es on M ar t i nez’ s a rgum ent , w hi ch w e have al re ady r ej ec t ed, thatan

“ a l l othe rc a s e s ” f

or c i bl e a s s a ul tr e qui r e s a n a tt e m ptorthr e a tt o i nf l i c ts e r i ous bo di l y i nj ury. A s di sc usse d sup ra , the di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y i nstruct ed the j ury

1214

on the t e r m “ f

or c i bl e a s s a ul t ” unde rthe e vi de nc e i n thi s c a s e . S pe c i f i c a l l y , the di s tr i c tc our tm a de i tc l e a rtha tthe gove r nm e ntne e de d t o pr ove be y ond a re as on abl e dou btthat : (1) M ar t i nez “ forc i bl y a ss aul t ed” P ar od i by com m i tt i ng an as saul tthatre sul t ed i n p hysi ca l cont ac t , bu tthatdi d n oti nv ol ve bo di l y i nj ury or a de a dl y w e apon; ( 2) tha tP a r odi w a s a f e de r a l of f i c e re nga ge d i n the pe r f or m a nc e of o f f ic ia l d u tie s ; a n d ( 3 ) th a t M a r tin e z a c te d k n o w in g ly a n d w illf u lly , m e a n in g h is a c tio n s w e r e v o lu n ta r y a n d in te n tio n a l a n d n o t th e r e s u lt o f m is ta k e o ra c c id e n t. T he gove r nm e nt ’ s e vi de nc e w a s s uf f i c i e ntt o e s t a bl i s h M a r t i ne z ’ s gui l t . T he e v id e n c e s h o w e d th a t M a r tin e z s p r a y e d au r in e - lik e liq u id th r o u g h th e s lo t in h is c e l l door ; tha tthe s tr e a m of l i qui d m a de phy s i c a l c ont a c tw i th P a r odi ’ s c he s ta nd h e a d , b u t d id n o t r e s u lt in s e r io u s b o d ily h a r m ; th a t, a t th e tim e o f th e in c id e n t, P ar od i w as a c orre ct i on al offi ce r c on du ct i ng a l i nen exchang e i n t he S H U w here M a r tin e z w a s h o u s e d ; a n d th a t M a r tin e z in te n d e d th e liq u id to m a k e c o n ta c t w ith P a r o d i a n d , in d e e d , h a d p la n n e d th e o f f e n s e a h e a d o f

tim e . F r o m th is e v id e n c e , a re as on abl e j ury c ou l d con cl ud e thatal l the el em ent s of a§ 1 11 (a ) off ense w er e m e t. C . C l o s i ng A r g um e nt M a r tin e z c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a b u s e d its d is c r e tio n w h e n it p r o h ib ite d h im f

r o m a r g u in g d u r in g c lo s in g a b o u t th e g o v e r n m e n t’s f a ilu r e toWe re view a dis tric t c ourt ’s re sti tution order f or an a bu seof dis c retio n, but th ele g a lity 13 of the order is reviewed denovo. United States v. Yeag er, 331 F .3d 1216, 1227 (11th Cir. 2003). 15 prod uce avi deot ape of the i nci dent . A l tho ug h evi dence w as pres ent ed attri al that vi deo cam er as w er e pre se nti n t he S H U , there w as no evi dence thatthe ca m er as w e r e c o n n e c te d to a r e c o r d in g d e v ic e o rth a t a v id e o tap e o f th e in c id e n t a c tu a lly e xi s t e d. A di s tr i c tc our tdoe s nota bus e i t s di s c r e t i on by pr ohi bi t i ng c ouns e l f r om m a ki ng a r gum e nt s tha ta r e uns uppor t e d by the r e c or d. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H a l l , 77 F .3 d 3 9 8 , 4 0 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) ( e x p la in in g th a t r e v e r s a l is w a r r a n te d “o n ly if c o u n s e l is p r e v e n te d f

r o m m a k in g a ll le g a l a r g u m e n ts s u p p o r te d b y th e f a c ts ” ) . D . R es ti tu ti on O rd er F in a lly , M a r tin e z c h a lle n g e s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e rr e q u ir in g M a r tin e z to p ay rest i tu t i o n t o P aro d i fo r h i s m ed i cal b i l l s. 13 T he M a nda t or y V i c t i m s R e s t i tut i on A c t( “ M V R A ” ) appl i e s t o a c onvi c t i on for a n o ff

ense : (1) thati s acr i m e of vi ol ence , w hi ch i s acr i m e thathas a s a n e l e m e ntthe us e , a tt e m pt e d us e orthr e a t e ne d us e of phy s i c a l f

or c e a ga i ns tthe pe r s on orpr ope r ty of

a nothe r ; a nd ( 2) i n w hi c h a n i de nt i f i a bl e vi c t i m s uf

f e r e d a p h y s i c a l i n

j u r y o rp e c u n i a r y l o s s . Se e 1 8 U . S. C. § § 1 6 , 3 6 6 3 A ( c ) ( 1 ) . Th e M V RA pr ovi de s tha tthe r e s t i tut i on or de rs ha l l r e qui r e the de f e nda ntt o pa y a n a m ount equal t o t he costof neces sary m edi ca l and rel at ed profes si on al se rvi ce s a nd devi ce s16

r e l a t i n g t o p h y s i c a l , p s y c h i a tr i c a n d p s y c h o l o g i c a l c a r e . 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 66 3A (b)( 2)(A ). M ar t i nez does notdi sput e thatforc i bl e a ss aul ti s acr i m e of vi ol ence un der the M V R A . R a the r , M a r t i ne z c ont e nds tha tr e s t i tut i on s houl d notbe a w a r de d f or m ed i cal co n su l t at i o n s an d ch eck -u p s fo r u n i n j u red v i ct i m s. T h e M V R A p e r m its r e s titu tio n f o rb o th p h y s ic a l in

ju r y a n d p e c u n ia r y lo s s . T hus , e ve n though P a r odi w a s nots e r i ous l y i nj ur e d by M a r t i ne z ’ s a s s a ul t , P a r odi ha d t o e xpe nd $1, 801. 63 i n m e di c a l t e s t s t o m a ke tha tde t e r m i na t i on. S om e of the ur i ne - l i ke l i qui d M a r t i ne z s pr a y e d on P a r odi goti n hi s m outh, nos e a nd e y e s , a nd P a r o d i d id n o t k n o w M a r tin e z ’s m e d ic a l h is to r y . U n til P a r o d i h a d th e m e d ic a l te s ts perf orm ed, he di d n otkn ow w hether he had contr ac t ed a c om m un i cabl e di se as e a s a r e s ul tof

M a r t i ne z ’ s a c t i ons . T he r e f or e , P a r odi a ta m i ni m um s uf f e r e d a pecuni ary l oss und erthe M V R A . F urtherm ore, beca use these m edi ca l t es t s w er e n e c e s s a r y to ru le o u t s e r io u s in ju r y , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t a b u s e its d is c r e tio n in o r d e r in g M a r tin e z to p a y a n a m o u n t e q u a l to th e irc o s t. AF F I RME D.