Did the inclusion of multiple alternative definitions of 'intimidate' within the jury instructions for the charged violation of 49 U.S.C. section 46504 reduce the government's burden of proof and impermissibly expand the scope of the statute

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Did the inclusion of multiple alternative definitions of “intimidate” within the jury instructions for the charged violation of 49 U.S.C. section 46504 reduce the government’s burden of proof and impermissibly expand the scope of the statute when each of the alternatives failed to state the correct standard by permitting the jury to use a subjective assessment of the flight attendant and conflating the second and third elements of the offense? 2. By adding the language “or to another” in the definition of “intimidate,” did the trial court illegally broaden the scope of the statute by allowing for intimidation of a flight attendant on the basis of a purely verbal dispute between passengers? li LIST OF ALL PARTIES Petitioner WILLIAM CLARK TURNER. Respondent THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. RELATED CASES United States v. Turner, No. U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. Judgment entered February 10, 2017. United States v. Turner, No. U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. Judgment entered August 8, 2017. United States v. Turner, No. 17-10299, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment entered February 27, 2019. United States v. Turner, No. US. District Court for the District of Hawaii. Judgment entered July 16, 2020. United States v. Turner, No. 21-16957, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment entered June 14, 2023. United States v. Turner, No. 21-16957, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judgment entered August 22, 2023.