UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

MICHAEL A. HOFIERKA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. RONALD CARL ANDREWS, A/K/A "BARRACUDA", DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Simpson, 228 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2000)
  …ncealed, or covered up a material fact, all of which were alleged in the indictment, there could have been no constructive amendment to the indictment, and we therefore must reject Poarch’s argument. Id. at 1358; see also United States v. Cornillie, 92 F. 3d 1108, 1110 (11th Cir.1996) (holding that the district court properly instructed the jury that the defendant could be found guilty if he had used force and violence or intimidation, tracking the language of the statute under which he was charged, 18 U.S.C…
• United States v. Yeager, 331 F.3d 1216 (11th Cir. 2003)
  …istrict court erred by failing to give to the jury his preferred instruction on the requirement of reasonable reliance. “We review a district court’s refusal to give a particular jury instruction for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Cornillie, 92 F. 3d 1108, 1109 (11th Cir.1996) (per curiam). The failure of a district court to give an appropriate instruction is reversible error where the requested instruction “(1) was correct; (2) was not substantially covered by the charge actually given; and (3) de…
• United States v. Monterrio Kelley, 412 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2005)
  …to “intimidation” is a key question in this appeal. Under section 2113(a), “intimidation occurs when an ordinary person in the teller’s position reasonably could infer a threat of bodily harm from the defendant’s acts.” United States v. Cornillie, 92 F. 3d 1108, 1110 (11th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Whether a particular act constitutes intimidation is viewed objectively, id., and a defendant can be convicted under section 2113(a) even if he did not intend for an act to…

Authorities Cited

• United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357 (11th Cir. 1996)