United States v. Ortiz-Orellana

6 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Tipton

    95 F.4th 831 (4th Cir. 2024)   Cited 2 times

    VICAR murder requires: (1) there be an "enterprise" as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1959(b)(2); (2) the enterprise be engaged in "racketeering activity," as defined in § 1961; (3) the defendant committed a murder; (4) the murder violated state or federal law; and (5) the murder was committed for a pecuniary purpose or for the purpose of gaining entrance to or maintaining or increasing position in the enterprise.See United States v. Ortiz-Orellana, 90 F.4th 689, 701 (4th Cir. 2024) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). The key elements here are Ortiz-Orellana's third, which we will refer to as the "murder element," and fifth, which we will shorthand as the "purpose element."

  2. United States v. Fulks

    No. 23-2 (4th Cir. Oct. 28, 2024)

    But they are useful only insofar as they reveal "how courts generally instruct juries with respect to an offense." United States v. Ortiz-Orellana, 90 F.4th 689, 703 (4th Cir. 2024) (quoting Allred, 942 F.3d at 650). We agree with the government that "one commentator's carjacking jury instructions" applicable in "a single federal district" do not speak to how federal courts generally instruct juries on § 2119.

  3. United States v. Freitekh

    114 F.4th 292 (4th Cir. 2024)   Cited 3 times

    We review "a district court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion." United States v. Ortiz-Orellana, 90 F.4th 689, 698-99 (4th Cir. 2024). Here, we apply "a highly deferential standard of review to ... a trial court's decision to admit evidence over a Rule 403 objection," and that decision "will not be overturned except under the most extraordinary circumstances, where that discretion has been plainly abused."

  4. United States v. Sloan

    No. 22-4634 (4th Cir. May. 16, 2024)

    To prevail under this standard, Sloan "must establish (1) that the court erred, (2) that the error is clear and obvious, (3) that the error affected [his] substantial rights, and [(4)] that the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings." United States v. Ortiz-Orellana, 90 F.4th 689, 699 (4th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up).

  5. United States v. Barrett

    102 F.4th 60 (2d Cir. 2024)   Cited 24 times
    Noting "longstanding rule that a panel of our court is bound by the decisions of prior panels until such times as they are overruled either by an en banc panel of our court or by the Supreme Court"

    After Lora, the Fourth Circuit reiterated its Palacios holding that cumulative punishments under § 924(c) and § 924(j) violate double jeopardy. See United States v. Ortiz-Orellana, 90 F.4th 689, 705-06 (4th Cir. 2024). Because that court reached its conclusion without considering congressional intent as reflected in the texts of § 924(c) and § 924(j), we do not find that decision persuasive.

  6. Benton v. Berkshire Richmond LLC

    Civil Action 3:23CV704 (RCY) (E.D. Va. Nov. 5, 2024)

    Having not been raised in Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, these arguments are procedurally barred. United States v. Ortiz-Orellana, 90 F.4th 689, 700 n.5 (4th Cir. 2024) (new argument raised for the first time in a reply brief is improper and will not be considered). Additionally, Local Rule 7(F) prohibits additional filings without leave of court, and the Court need not need to consider the arguments raised in an improperly filed briefing such as the Addendum to the Reply.