Case Explained: United States v. Hernandez

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-07 Docket: 1:23-CR-00586-DHU-1) The tenth-circuit affirmed the defendant’s conviction for assaulting a security consultant who was assisting federal officers, holding that the victim qualified as an “official victim” under 18 U.S.C. § 111 and § 1114. The court applied a fact-specific standard of review to determine whether the evidence supported the jury’s finding that the victim was acting within the scope of his official duties and assisting a federal officer in the performance of those duties, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. The court reasoned that Congress intended § 111 to protect both federal officers and federal functions, ensuring a federal forum for offenses involving them. The analysis focused on whether the victim was acting within the compass of his employment rather than engaging in a “personal frolic,” without requiring a bright-line test or a direct contractual relationship with the federal agency. The court found that the security consultant’s duties—conducting rounds and inspecting cells at a facility contracted by the United States Marshals Service to house federal pretrial detainees—constituted a federal function. The fact that the consultant was employed by a private contractor (CoreCivic) rather than directly by the government, or had an agreement with CoreCivic instead of the Marshals Service, did not disqualify him from statutory protection. Citing precedent such as *United States v. Feola* and *United States v. Holder*, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could find the consultant was assisting federal officers in their official duties at the time of the assault. As a result of this affirmation, the defendant’s forty-seven-month prison sentence remains in effect, and the judgment of the district court is final. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.