United States v. Hernandez.
No. 25-2084. 8/7/2026. D.N.M. Judge Carson. Pretrial Detention—Contractor Assisting US Marshall in Performing Official Duties—Assault—Victim Under 18 USC § 111.
August 7, 2026
Hernandez was a federal pretrial detainee in the custody of the US Marshals Service (Marshals Service) at Cibola County Correctional Center (Cibola). The Marshals Service contracts with Cibola to hold federal pretrial detainees. CoreCivic is a private company that operates Cibola and has a contract with JTF Consulting and Security International, LLC (JTF) to provide security consulting. This contract lists the services JTF would provide to CoreCivic, including consulting services and miscellaneous projects and “[s]uch other services as agreed to by the parties.” JTF did not have a contract with the Marshals Service. Because Cibola had a personnel shortage, the Cibola warden asked one of JTF’s employees, J.F., to assist with daily tasks for the federal pretrial detainees, including making rounds. J.F. was conducting rounds with a correctional officer when they discovered an extra mattress in Hernandez’s cell. J.F. and the correctional officer arranged for central control to unlock the cell door so they could remove the mattress, and when central control opened the door, Hernandez pushed it open and punched J.F. multiple times in the face. J.F. suffered several injuries, including a broken nose that required surgery. Hernandez was indicted for assaulting J.F. in violation of 18 USC § 111(a) and (b), which criminalizes assaulting a person who was assisting a federal officer while engaged in performing official duties. Hernandez moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and sought acquittal, alleging that J.F. was not assisting a federal officer in the performance of official duties. The district court ruled that J.F. could fall within the class of people § 111 protects and denied the motions. The district court instructed the jury to make a finding on whether J.F. was assisting federal officers with their official duties at the time of the incident and whether J.F. was working within the scope of his duties. The jury so found, and Hernandez was found guilty and sentenced to 47 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Hernandez argued that the government did not prove that J.F. was an official victim under § 111. He maintained that J.F. was not a federal officer and that his private contractor status for CoreCivic was relevant. Section 111(a) provides that a person who forcibly assaults any person designated in § 1114 while engaged in the performance of official duties is subject to criminal liability. And § 111 protects both federal officers and federal functions. Section 1114(a) protects “any officer or employee of the United States or of any agency in any branch of the United States Government . . . while such officer or employee is engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties, or any person assisting such an officer or employee in the performance of such duties or on account of that assistance . . . .” Performing rounds and checking on federal pretrial detainees is a federal function. Here, the tasks J.F. performed were to assist the Marshals Service. Further, no authority suggests that the statute does not cover J.F. because he did not have a direct contract with the Marshals Service. The evidence shows that J.F. assisted a federal officer engaged in the performance of his official duties, and Hernandez assaulted J.F. while he did so. Accordingly, J.F. was a victim under the statute.
The judgment was affirmed.