nations as used in 18 U.S.C. § 1651.” Id. at 4-5. Having found no meritorious premise for relief, the court validated the defendants’ Count One piracy convictions. See id. at 5-6,16-17. B. On appeal, the defendants maintain that the district court erred with respect to Count One both by misinstructing the jury on the elements of the piracy offense, and in refusing to award post-trial judgments of acquittal. Each aspect of the defendants’ position obliges us to assess whether the court took a mistaken view of 18 U.S.C. § 1651 and the incorporated law of nations. See United States v. Kellam, 568 F.3d 125, 132 (4th Cir.2009) (observing that we “review de novo a district court’s ruling on a motion for a judgment of acquittal”); United States v. Singh, 518 F.3d 236, 249, 251 (4th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Simply put, we agree with the conception of
recognizing that the trial court abuses its discretion when it commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary decision holding district courts dismissal of an action with prejudice without addressing ehrenhaus factors on the record amounts to an abuse of discretion internal quotation marks omitted recognizing that we review a trial courts jury instruc tions for abuse of discretion and that a district court abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law internal quotation marks omitted recognizing that we review the sentence imposed by a district court under the abuse of discretion standard holding a court abuses its discretion when it commits an error of law