Court Opinion

ID: 9369192
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-08 01:00:18.952564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:13.501735
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-40748         Document: 00516637976             Page: 1     Date Filed: 02/07/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                           Fifth Circuit

                                                                                         FILED
                                                                                      February 7, 2023
                                        No. 21-40748
                                                                                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                            Clerk

   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.
Case: 21-40748      Document: 00516637976           Page: 2     Date Filed: 02/07/2023

                                     No. 21-40748

                                        * * *
          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, 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, Ordaz-
   Echevarria “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).

                                           2
Case: 21-40748        Document: 00516637976              Page: 3      Date Filed: 02/07/2023

                                         No. 21-40748

           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 Ordaz-
   Echevarria’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”).

                                               3