[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-14019

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cr-00147-VMC-MAP-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY M. LYNCH, 

a.k.a. Ant,

 Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(June 3, 2015)

Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 14-14019 Date Filed: 06/03/2015 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Anthony Lynch appeals his 21-month sentence, imposed after the district 

court revoked his supervised release based its on finding that he fled, eluded the 

police, and attempted to murder a law enforcement officer. Mr. Lynch argues that 

the district court erred in two ways: (1) by ignoring his duress defense and placing 

the burden on him to prove duress; and (2) by denying his fifth motion for a 

continuance. After reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm. 

I

We review a district court’s revocation of supervised release for abuse of 

discretion, see United States v. Cunningham, 607 F.3d 1264, 1266 (11th Cir. 

2010), and are bound by the district court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly 

erroneous, see United States v. Almand, 992 F.2d 316, 318 (11th Cir. 1993). We 

review the denial of a motion for a continuance for an abuse of discretion. See 

United States v. Bowe, 221 F.3d 1183, 1189 (11th Cir. 2000). 

II

Mr. Lynch first argues that the district court abused its discretion in failing 

to consider evidence that corroborated his duress defense—that he was forced at 

gunpoint to flee from the police and did not intend to strike the officer with his car. 

This argument, however, fails for two reasons. First, the record shows that the 

district court considered the defense but determined that other evidence, such as

Mr. Lynch’s rapid acceleration of the vehicle and failure to obey the officer’s 

Case: 14-14019 Date Filed: 06/03/2015 Page: 2 of 4 
3

commands, supported a finding that he attempted to strike and murder the police

officer. Second, even if the district court had failed to consider evidence that 

might have substantiated Mr. Lynch’s claim, under Florida law duress is not an 

available defense to those charged with attempted first-degree murder. See Henry 

v. State, 613 So. 2d 429, 432 (Fla. 1992) (“Moreover, duress is not a defense to 

intentional homicide because ‘duress will never justify the killing of an innocent 

third party.’”). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Mr. 

Lynch’s supervised release.

The district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Lynch’s

unopposed motion for a fifth continuance. Mr. Lynch contends that because he 

had state charges pending, he could not testify in support of his duress defense 

without making incriminating statements, which would have exposed him to a state 

sentence of 25 years to life in prison. “The denial of a continuance [, however,] is 

not an abuse of discretion unless it ‘severely prejudices’ the moving party.” In re 

Fisher Island Investments, Inc., 778 F.3d 1172, 1197 (11th Cir. 2015) (citations 

omitted). Because the defense of duress was not available as a matter of law, Mr. 

Lynch cannot show that he was severely prejudiced by the district court’s denial of 

his continuance motion. 

III

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.

Case: 14-14019 Date Filed: 06/03/2015 Page: 3 of 4 
4

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-14019 Date Filed: 06/03/2015 Page: 4 of 4