United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-3248

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Willard Begay

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

____________

 Submitted: May 11, 2015

 Filed: July 29, 2015

[Unpublished] 

____________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

BENTON, Circuit Judge. 

Willard Begay challengesthe denial of his motion for acquittal. He argues that

the evidence is insufficient to prove he assaulted a federal employee in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 111. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. 
This “court reviews de novo the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a

conviction.” United States v. Wiest, 596 F.3d 906, 910 (8th Cir. 2010). A verdict is

sustained if “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the

crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). 

This court reviews the evidence most favorably to the verdict. Id. 

Michael Williams was a correctional counselor at the Federal Medical Center

(FMC). One of his duties was to aid in conflict resolution between inmates. He

decided to move Begay to another cell for his safety. He called Begay to his office

to tell him that. At the end of the conversation, Williams began to handcuff Begay

in order to take him to his new cell. Begay turned and punched Williams in the left

eye with a closed fist. Williams stepped backward. Begay picked up a computer

printer, raised it over his head, and threw it at Williams’s face. The printer hit

Williams just below his left eye. Williams radioed for help. Several officersremoved

Begay from the room. Williams suffered an orbital bone fracture and lacerations on

the cheek and eyelid. 

A violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(b) requires that (1) Begay forcibly assaulted a

federal employee (2) voluntarily and intentionally (3) inflicting bodily injury (4)

when the federal employee was engaged in the performance of official duties. See

United States v. Drapeau, 644 F.3d 646, 652 (8th Cir. 2011).

Begay does not contest that Williams was assaulted. He testified he did not do

it; Williams testified he did. Williams also identified Begay in a video entering his

office and leaving in handcuffs. Two other correctional officers testified that Begay

was the only person in the room with Williams when they arrived. “The jury has the

sole responsibility to resolve conflicts or contradictions in testimony, and credibility

determinations are resolved in favor of the verdict.” Wiest, 596 F.3d at 910. Viewing

the evidence most favorably to the verdict, a rational jury could find that Begay was

the one who attacked Williams.

-2-
The other elements are undisputed. Williams’s testimony, photographs of his

face, and the testimony of three other witnesses show actual physical contact and

bodily injury. See United States v. Schrader, 10 F.3d 1345, 1348 (8th Cir. 1993). 

Williams’s job as a correctional counselor was to aid in conflict resolution between

inmates, including relocating Begay for his safety. See United States v. Street, 66

F.3d 969, 978 (8th Cir. 1995) (“Engaged in . . . performance of official duties”

requires “acting within the scope of what [he was] employed to do”). A rational jury

could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Begay violated 18 U.S.C. § 111. 

*******

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-