United States v. Wilber Vigil-Benitez

── United States v. Wilber Vigil-Benitez ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 28, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-11475 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 04/28/2026 Page: 1 of 9 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11475 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus WILBER VIGIL-BENITEZ, a.k.a. Solitario, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:22-cr-60078-RAR-6 ____________________ Before LUCK, LAGOA, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Wilber Vigil-Benitez appeals his conviction for one count of murder in the aid of racketeering. The conviction arose out of a USCA11 Case: 25-11475 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 04/28/2026 Page: 2 of 9 2 Opinion of the Court 25-11475 murder linked to Vigil-Benitez and four of his codefendants, all of whom were part of -- or seeking entrance to -- La Mara Salvatrucha, the “MS-13” gang. On appeal, Vigil-Benitez argues that: (1) the dis- trict court erred in its jury instructions by giving the wrong legal standard for the motive element of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1); and (2) the district court abused its discretion by declining to include his requested jury instruction that “mere presence” at the scene of the crime was not sufficient to establish guilt. After thorough review, we affirm. I. Where the defendant challenges the instructions as read, we review the legal correctness of a jury instruction de novo. United States v. Prather, 205 F.3d 1265, 1270 (11th Cir. 2000). If a party fails to object to the instructions as read, however, we review for plain error. Id. “Jury instructions will not be reversed for plain error unless the charge, considered as a whole, is so clearly erroneous as to result in a likelihood of a grave miscarriage of justice, or the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judi- cial proceedings.” United States v. Graham, 123 F.4th 1197, 1273–74 (11th Cir. 2024) (citation modified). If a defendant demonstrates plain error, we have the “discretion to correct the error if it seri- ously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 1274. When a party expressly accepts a jury instruction, that action constitutes invited error, which precludes our review of that issue on appeal. United States v. Hill, 119 F.4th 862, 866 (11th Cir. 2024). USCA11 Case: 25-11475 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 04/28/2026 Page: 3 of 9 25-11475 Opinion of the Court 3 A district court’s refusal to give a requested theory-of-de- fense jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Woodard, 531 F.3d 1352, 1364 (11th Cir. 2008). A challenge to the instructions is preserved if the party objects to the instruc- tions on specific grounds before the jury retires. United States v. Starke, 62 F.3d 1374, 1380–81 (11th Cir. 1995). A district court abuses its discretion if “(1) the requested instruction was a corre