Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02315/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02315-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Anthony Picarelli
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

.. FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Cira1it 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

MICHAEL ANTHONY PICARELLI, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FEB 8 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-2315 

(D.C. No. CR 89-242-01 SC) 

(D. New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges, and SPARR, District 

Judge.** 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously to honor the parties' request for a 

decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant Michael Anthony Picarelli appeals his conviction 

for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute more than 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** The Honorable Daniel B. Sparr, United States District Judge 

for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-2315 Document: 010110099902 Date Filed: 02/08/1991 Page: 1 
100 kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 u.s.c. SS 846(a)(l) 

and 84l(b)(l)(B). On appeal he makes three contentions: 

(1) The stop of the vehicle he was driving was not based upon 

reasonable suspicion in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights; 

(2) the district court erred in not giving a requested instruction 

on duress or coercion; and (3) the district court erred in not 

giving requested instructions on its special interrogatory on his 

role in the offense as being a minimal or minor participant. We 

affirm. 

The government clearly had sufficient articulable suspicion 

to stop defendant's vehicle under Tercy v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 

(1968), based upon information received from a reliable 

confidential informant, its surveillance of the remote area, and 

defendant's actions. 

We agree with the government that defendant did not establish 

an inunediate threat of death or serious bodily injury or a wellgrounded fear that any threat would be carried out, nor did he 

make a showing that he had no reasonable opportunity to escape 

threatened harm, to justify a duress or coercion defense 

instruction. See United States v. Scott, 901 F.2d 871, 873-74 

(10th Cir. 1990). 

The government is also correct in its argument that defendant 

is not entitled to an instruction and special interrogatory 

concerning his role in the offense as being a minimal or minor 

participant. That is a matter under the Sentencing Guidelines for 

the district court in determining an appropriate sentence. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-2315 Document: 010110099902 Date Filed: 02/08/1991 Page: 2 
• 

AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-2315 Document: 010110099902 Date Filed: 02/08/1991 Page: 3