United States v. James Wilkins, Jr., 25 F.4th 596

Wilkins pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm; a jury convicted him of violating 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)/(b) (forcibly assaulting/resisting/etc. with a dangerous weapon) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (brandishing a firearm).
U.S. Marshals and a city police sergeant went to a motel to arrest Wilkins; motel staff and an occupant directed officers to Room 206 and warned Wilkins might have a gun.
When officers knocked, Wilkins hid in the bathroom with a loaded gun, ignored repeated commands to surrender for ~2–3 minutes, told officers he had a gun, briefly displayed it, and (according to officers) raised it when emerging.
Officers perceived an imminent deadly threat and fired, wounding Wilkins; he later testified he was trying to surrender and was shot as he rose after placing the gun on the floor.
The district court denied a motion for acquittal, instructed the jury per the Eighth Circuit model (including that the conduct must be "voluntarily and intentionally" done), and the jury convicted; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove voluntary, intentional use of weapon under § 111(b)	Wilkins: evidence showed only officers' beliefs about his intent; no direct proof he intentionally used the gun to "forcibly" assault/resist/etc.	Government: intent can be inferred from actions — hiding with a loaded gun, ignoring commands, displaying and raising the gun — and credibility falls to the jury.	Affirmed: viewing evidence in prosecution's favor, a reasonable jury could find Wilkins acted voluntarily and intentionally.
Jury instruction whether the adverb "forcibly" modified each listed verb in § 111(a)	Wilkins: instruction ambiguous; jury might think "forcibly" applies only to "assaults," allowing conviction based on mere possession or nonforcible "interference."	Government: instruction tracked statutory text; context (closing arguments, verdict form) and ordinary grammar show "forcibly" modifies each verb; no misleading charge.	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion or plain error; instructions, read as a whole, did not mislead the jury.

United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671 (1975) (intent required to commit § 111-type offenses)
United States v. Schrader, 10 F.3d 1345 (8th Cir. 1993) (physical contact not required; threat/display suffices for force element)
United States v. Walker, 835 F.2d 983 (2d Cir. 1987) (objective standard: would defendant's behavior inspire reasonable fear)
United States v. Arrington, 309 F.3d 40 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (intent to use weapon is necessary for § 111(b); caution about instruction clarity)
United States v. Wallace, 852 F.3d 778 (8th Cir. 2017) (credibility disputes for jury; upholding § 111 conviction on similar facts)
United States v. Henderson, 11 F.4th 713 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard for sufficiency review and deference to jury credibility)
United States v. Gumbs, 964 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2020) (adverb "forcibly" grammatically modifies each verb in series; instruction interpretation)