## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay7,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. J UAN DES HAN NON BUTL ER, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 5027

A ppeal from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt fo r t h e Di s t r i c t o f

N. D. Ok l a h o ma ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CR- 4 - 0 1 - CVE) D ougl as E dw ar d Snow , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney( D avi d E . O ’ M ei l i a, U n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y, a n d K e v i n D a n i e l s o n , A s s i s t a n tU n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o rn e y, on t he br i efs ) T ul s a, O kl ahoma, forPl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee R ober tA . R i denour , A s s i s t antFeder al Publ i c D efe nder( Paul D . B runt on, Feder al Publ i c D efe nder , on t he br i efs ) , T ul s a, O kl ahoma, forD efe ndant- A ppel l ant B efor e O’ BR I EN , S EY M OUR and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. O’ BRI EN , C i r cui tJ udge.

A ju ryc o n v icte d Ju a n B u tler o f b e in g a fe lo n in p o ss e ss io n o f a fire a rm , in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) , and an a r m ed ca r eercr i m i nal i n pos s es s i on of-2-

a fi r earm and amm uni t i on, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924( e) ( 1) . T he di s tr i ct j udge r efus ed B ut l er ’ s r eques tt o i ns tructthe j uryon j us t i fi cat i on, butm ade a dow nw ar d departur e fr om t he s ent enci ng gui del i nes i n r ecogni t i on of the uni que c i r c u ms t a n c e s o f

th i s c a s e . Bu t l e ra p p e a l s . W e a ffi r m.

I. B ackgr ound O n O c to b e r 2 7 , 2 0 0 4 , F e d e ra l B u re a u o f In v e stig a tio n A g e n t M a tt L ot s pei ch and Tul s a Pol i ce D et ect i ve Paul H ut t erw er e i nves t i gat i ng an arm ed r obbery . B el i evi ng B ut l erm i ghthave s om e i nform at i on abouts us pect s , the offi cer s m etw i t h hi m athi s apart m entand arr anged t o agai n m eetw i th hi m for addi t i onal ques t i oni ng. O n N ovember4, 2004, thatm eet i ng occurr ed i n an unm arked pol i ce c arout s i de B ut l er ’ s apart m ent . D ur i ng the meet i ng B ut l erw ent i nt o hi s apart m entand r etur ned t o the ca rw i th a l oaded gun. H e s ai d he nee ded t o be r i d of the gun. A tt r i al , B ut l ert es t i fi ed aboutthe ci r cumst ance s of hi s pos s es s i on of the g u n . F o r p u rp o se s o f

th is a p p e a l w e a c c e p t h is te stim o n ya s tru e a n d re late h is versi on of ev ents . O ne d ay , w hen his w i fe an d d aug hterw ere hom e, there w as a k n o c k a t th e b a c k d o o r o f th e a p a rtm e n t. W hen he ope ned the door , t w o m en w er e out s i de. B ut l erknew one, J erm ai ne Li nk, butnott he other , l at eri dent i fi ed as R udyG om ez. H e admi t t ed the men becaus e he kne w J erm ai ne, w ho s ai d he had a bus i nes s pr opos i t i on. W hen B ut l eras ked the natur e of the pr opos i t i on, G om ez e xpl ai ned he w as havi ng a pr obl em w i th a per s on named A l vi n. G om ez-3-

s ai d he had be en as s aul t ed byA l vi n and w ant ed B ut l ert o ki l l A l vi n. G om ez pul l ed outa gun and t ol d B ut l ert o us e i tt o m ur derA l vi n. Shocked and a fr ai d, B u tler a g re e d . H e fe lt h e h a d n o c h o ice ; if h e re f u se d , G o m e z w o u ld sh o o t h im and hi s fami l y . H i s fea rw as w el l founded be caus e G om ez poi nt ed the gun at B ut l erw hi l e expl ai ni ng t he A l vi n pr obl em, change d the t one of hi s voi ce, and a c te d a s if

h e h a d a n o th e r g u n in h is p a n ts . A l t hough B ut l erknew i tw as i l l egal forhi m t o pos s es s the gun, he di d not t ake i tt o t he author i t i es beca us e G om ez a nd J erm ai ne w oul d be comi ng back a nd he w oul d be i n dangeri f theydi s cover ed i tw as m i s s i ng. T he nexteveni ng, G o m ez an d Jerm aine return ed to the ap artm en t. T h eyd rov e B u tl er to A lvin’s hous e and pa r ked i ncons pi cuous l ybehi nd i tt o di s cus s the l ay out . B ut l er a c q u i e s c e d b e c a u s e h e w a n t e d t o a v o i d v i o l e n c e a g a i n s th i m a n d h i s fa m i l y. G om ez w ant ed an “ ai r t i ghtal i bi , ” s uch as bei ng i ncar cer at ed, s o he instructed B u tl er to d elaythe m u rde r un ti l he c o u ld m ak e su ch arran g em en ts. In t he i nt er i m G om ez s t ay ed i n cont actw i th B ut l ervi a ce l l phone. K now i ng G om ez an d o thers b eli ev ed ce ll p h o n es o p era ted b ythe lo ca l m o b il e p h o n e c o m p an yw ere cons t ant l ym oni t or ed, B ut l ert r i ed t o “s pi l l i nform at i on” – thati s , m ent i on i nform at i on l i nki ng G om ez t o t he pl ot– hopi ng G om ez w oul d bel i eve he coul d be connec t ed t o t he murde rr egar dl es s of w hatal i bi he mi ghtarr ange. T hus , B ut l er h o p e d , G o m e z w o u ld c a ll o ff th e p lo t. Fi nal l y , G om ez c hanged hi s m i nd aboutthe murde r . W hen he s o advi s ed-4-

B ut l erhe al l ow ed B ut l ert o keep the gun. A tthi s poi nt , B ut l erdeci ded t o tur n t he gun overt o t he author i t i es . K now i ng the age nt s ( w i th w hom he had now e sta b lish e d a re latio n sh ip ) w e re d u e to v isit h im a g a in , h e w a ited fo r th e m to come t o hi s apart m entt o s ur r enderthe gun. T he el aps ed t i m e betw een a bor t i ng t he murde rand s ur r ender i ng t he gun w as tw o t o fourday s ; B ut l erpos s es s ed the gu n fo r a t otal of fou r t o si x w eeks. I I. Standar d of

R evi ew If su p p o rte d b yth e e v id e n c e a n d th e law , a c rim in a l d e fe n d a n t is e n tit led to ju ry in s tru c tio n s c o n c e rn in g h is th e o ry o f d e fe n s e , Un itedS ta tes v . Visin a iz , 428 F .3 d 1 3 0 0 , 1 3 0 8 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 6 S .C t. 11 0 1 (2 0 0 6 ), in th is cas e, j us t i fi cat i on. “‘ Fort he purpos es of det erm i ni ng the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence t o r ai s e the j ur yi s s ue, t he t es t i m onym os tfavor abl e t o the def endant s houl d be ac cept ed. ’ ” Un ite dS ta te s v . A l- R e ka b i, 4 5 4 F . 3 d 1 1 1 3 , 1 1 2 1 (10 th C ir . 2006) ( quot i ng Un itedS ta tes v . Sc u ll , 3 2 1 F .3 d 1 2 7 0 , 1 2 7 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 )) . B ut , “i ti s es s ent i al t hatt he t es t i m onygi ven orpr offe r ed meeta mi ni m um sta n d a rd a s to e a c h e lem e n t o f th e d e fe n se so th a t, i f a ju ryfin d s it to b e tru e , it w oul d s uppor tan affi r m at i ve defens e— her e thatof dur es s ornece s s i ty . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. B ai l ey , 4 4 4 U .S . 3 9 4 , 4 1 5 (1 9 8 0 ). W h e n th e trial ju d g e re f u se s to in s tru c t o n a s p e c ific d e fe n s e , w e re v ie w fo r a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . A l-R e ka b i, 4 5 4 F .3 d a t 1 1 2 1 .C our t s have us ed the t erm s dur es s , nece s s i ty , and j us t i fi cat i on 1 in te rc h a n g e a b ly. See Uni t ed Stat es v. Leahy , 4 7 3 F .3 d 4 0 1 , 4 0 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). T hi s m aybe due t o t he deve l opm entof the defens e bydr aw i ng upon comm on la w . Id. "W hi l e the defens e of dur es s cover ed the s i tuat i on w her e the coe r ci on had i t s s our ce i n t he ac t i ons of otherhum an bei ngs , t he defens e of ne ces s i ty , or choi ce of

evi l s , t r adi t i onal l ycover ed the s i tuat i on w her e phy s i cal for ces bey ond t he actor' s contr ol r end ered i l l egal cond uct the les serof tw o ev i l s. " B ai l ey , 444 U .S . 3 9 4 , 4 0 9 -4 1 0 (1 9 8 0 ). In m o d e rn tim e s, “ ‘[ t]h e tra d iti o n a llyse p a ra te d efen ses o f n ec essityan d d u ress h av e b ec o m e inc rea sing lyb lurred in m o d ern deci s i ons , t o t he poi ntof m er ger . ’ ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Hol l i day , 457 F. 3d 121, 127 (1 s t C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), cer t . deni ed , 127 S. C t . 1317 ( 2007) ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. Nels on- R odr iguez , 319 F. 3d 12, 40 n. 9 ( 1s tC i r . 2004) ) . T he defens e r eques t ed by B ut l er , as w e def

i ned i ti n Un itedS ta tes v . Vig il , 7 4 3 F . 2 d 7 5 1 , 7 5 5 (10 th C ir . 1984) , i s s poken of i n t erm s of j us t i fi cat i on and nec es s i ty . W e us e that te rm in o lo g yin th is o p in io n . Leahy , 473 F. 3d at406 ( “[E] as e i n admi ni s tr at i on fa v o rs trea ti n g [th e c o m m o n law d efen ses o f d u ress, ne ce ssity , an d self-d efen se], i n a fe der al fel on- i n- pos s es s i on cas e, undera s i ngl e, uni t aryrubr i c: justi fica ti o n . ”); Uni t ed Stat es v. Salgado- O campo , 1 5 9 F . 3 d 3 2 2 , 3 2 7 n . 6 (7th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) (“ [ N ]e c e ss ity , jus tific a tio n , d u re ss a n d se lf-d e fe n se a re in ter c h a n g e a b ly lu m p e d to g e th e r u n d e r th e ru b ric o f th e ju stifica tio n d e fe n se .”); Uni t ed Stat es v. G om ez , 92 F. 3d 770, 774 ( 9t h C i r . 1996) ( w her e defendantar gued he w as ent i t l ed t o a d uress or necessi t ydefe nse, the N i nth C i rcui tno t ed such cases “have a l m ost alw ay s b ee n an aly ze d in term s o f ju sti fica ti o n , ” a n d an aly ze d ac co rdin g ly ). -5- I I I. D is cus s i on I n t hi s cas e, B ut l er s ought an i ns truct i on on a j us t i fi cat i on defe ns e. Such a 1 d e fe n se re q u ire s th e d e fe n d a n t to d e m o n stra te th e fo llo w in g : ( 1) t hatdefe ndantw as underan unl aw ful and pr es ent , i m m i nent , and i m pendi ng [thr eat ] of s uch a na tur e as t o i nduce a w el l - gr ounded a p p r e h e n s i o n o f

d e a t h o rs e r i o u s b o d i l y i nj u ry; (2 ) th a t d e fe n d a n t h a d n o t re c k les slyo r n e g lig e n tlyp lac e d h im se lf in a situ a tio n in w h ich it w a s p ro b a b le th a t h e w o u ld b e [ fo rc e d to ch o o se th e c ri m inal co n d u ct]; ( 3) t hatdefe ndanthad no r eas onabl e, l egal al t ernat i ve t o vi ol at i ng th e law , a c h a n c e b o th to re f u se to d o th e c rim in a l ac t an d a lso to avoi d t he thr eat ened ha r m ; and ( 4) t hata di r ectcaus al r el at i ons hi p m aybe r eas onabl yant i ci pat ed“ If, as w e h e re h o ld , an a ffirm a tiv e d e fe n se c o n sis ts o f se v e ra l ele m e n ts 2 and t es t i m onys uppor t i ng one el ementi s i ns uffi ci entt o s us t ai n i teven i f bel i eved, t he tr i al cour tand j ur yneed notbe bur dened w i th t es t i m onys uppor t i ng other e le m e n ts o f

th e d e fe n s e .” B ai l ey , 444 U . S. at416. I n A l

- R ekabit he defendantar gued he s houl d be ent i t l ed t o a j us t i fi cat i on 3 in s tru c tio n b e c a u s e h e h a d ta k e n th e fir e a rm f ro m h is 1 2 -ye a r- o ld b ro th e r. Id . A l t ho ug h the si tuati on w as “ pot ent i al l

y verydanger ous , ” the defendantw as not e n tit led to a ju stifica tio n in stru c tio n b e c a u se “ th e d a n g e r . . . w a s n o t cle a rly ‘ i m m i nent . ’ ” Id. (em p h asis ad d ed ). I n A lR ekabiw e ana l ogi zed the el ement s of the es cape i n B ai l ey t o the 4 e le m e n ts o f

a fe lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f a w e a p o n . Id. at1124. -6- betw een the [c r i m i nal ] act i on t aken a nd the avoi dance of the [ t h r e a t e n e d ] h a r m. Vig il , 7 4 3 F . 2 d at 75 5 (cit ati o n s an d interna l qu o tat ion s o m itted). A n o th e r p rin c ip le o v e ra rc h e s a n d q u a lifie s th e fo u r fa c to rs a n n o u n c e d in Vig il . I ti s t empora l – i f j us t i fi cat i on i s es t abl i s hed byevi dence of al l four fa c to rs, th e d e fe n se is a v a ilab le o n lyso lo n g a s a ll o f th o se fa c to rs c o n tin u e to e x is t. A lR ekabi , 454 F. 3d at1123. W e r es tourdeci s i on on t he fi r s tof Vigil ’s fou r fact ors. 2 A . Im m inen t and Im p en d ing T h rea t of D ea th o r S eriou s B o d il yInju ry T o sat i sfyt he fir stprong of a just i fi cat i on defe nse, “[t ]he defen dan tm ust s how an i m m i nentdanger– a r eal r i s k of dea th ors er i ous bodi l yi nj ury . ” A lR ekabi , 454 F. 3d at1125. A nd t he i m m i nentdangerm us tper s i s tt hr oughoutt he 3 p o s s e s s io n . Id . at1125- 26. T he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n B ai l ey is b o th i ns t ruct i ve and c om pel l i ng. T he C our tcl ear l ycondi t i oned a j us t i fi cat i on 4“T h e re q u ir em en t of a thre sh o ld sh o w ing o n the p art of tho se w h o asse rt 5 an affi r m at i ve defens e t o a cr i m e i s byno m eans a der ogat i on of the i m por t ance o f t h e j u r y a s a j u d g e o f c r e d i b i l i ty. N o ri s i tb a s e d o n a n y d i s tru s to f t h e j u ry's abi l i t yt o s epar at e fa ctfr om fi ct i on. O n the contr ary , i ti s a t es t amentt o the i m por t ance of tr i al byj ur yand the nee d t o hus band the r es our ces nece s s aryfor t hatpr oces s byl i m i t i ng evi dence i n a tr i al t o thatdi r ect ed att he el ement s of the cr i m e orataff

i r m at i ve defens es . ” B ai l ey , 4 4 4 U .S . a t 4 1 6 . -7- i ns t ruct i on on t he defendant ’ s pr oof of a bandonmentof i l l egal conductatthe ear l i es tpos s i bl e oppor tuni t y . I n B ai l ey , pr i s on es cape es r eques t ed an i ns truct i on o n d u re ss o r n e c e ss ity , cla im in g th e ir e sc a p e f ro m p riso n w a s d u e to in to ler a b le condi t i ons . R ever s i ng t he C our tof A ppeal s forthe D i s tr i ctof C ol um bi a, the Supr eme C our taff

i r m ed the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s r efus al t o i ns tructthe j ur yon s uch a defe ns e. “[W ] her e a c r i m i nal defe ndanti s char ged w i th es cape and cl ai m s thathe i s ent i t l ed t o an i ns t ruct i on on t he theoryof dur es s ornece s s i ty , he mustpr offe r evi dence of a bona fi de effor tt o s ur r enderorr eturn t o cus t odyas s oon as the cl ai m ed dur es s ornece s s i t yhad l os ti t s coer ci ve for ce. ” B ai l ey , 4 4 4 U .S . a t 4 1 5 . B eca us e the B ai l ey d e fe n d a n ts fa iled to tu rn th e m se lv e s in a t th e “ e a rlies t p o ss ib le oppor tuni t y , ” w hi ch w as “an i ndi s pens abl e el ementof the defens e of dur es s or nece s s i t y , ” t hey w er e not ent i t l ed t o the i ns truct i on. Id. 5 B u tler’ s a c c o u n t o f

th e fa c ts – re latin g G o m e z ’s th re a ten in g m a n n e r, h is t one of voi ce, and poi nt i ng a gun atB ut l er– ar guabl ypr es ent ed a j uryques t i on as to a p rese n t, im m inen t and im p en d ing threa t of d ea th o r seriou s b o d il yinjury d u rin g th e in iti a l m e e tin g . B u t as B u tler’ s n a rra tiv e c o n tin u e d th e p o ss ib le i nfer ence of i m m i nentdangerer oded t o the poi ntw her e, as t he tr i al j udge-8-

deci ded, t he evi dence , cons i der ed as a w hol e and vi ew ed mostchar i t abl yt o the d e fe n d a n t, sim p lyd id n o t su sta in th e re q u ire d in fe re n c e . It i s a w o rk in g e x a m p le of the pr operexer ci s e of the tr i al j udge’ s r ol e as gat ekee per– deci di ng i f the e v id e n c e p a s s e s th e th re s h o ld fo r a ju s tific a tio n in s tru c tio n . B ut l erfai l ed t o r el i nqui s h t he gun atthe “e ar l i es tpos s i bl e opportuni ty . ” T he s t andar d announce d i n A l

- R ekabi , w h il e n o t un fo rgiv ing , is de m an d ing . It appea r s t he di s t r i ctcour tw as notconvi nced, norar e w e, that“i m m i nent ” dange r p e rsis ted th e e n tire fo u r to six w e e k s B u tler p o ss e ss e d th e fire a rm . C e rta in lyit w a s n o t a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n fo r t h e d is tr ic t c o u rt to s o c o n s id e r t h e e v id e n c e . B ut , one nee d notdw el l on l i nger i ng dangerbeca us e G om ez c al l ed off the murde r p lo t an d to ld B u tler to k e e p th e g u n . A t th a t p o in t th e d a n g e r h a d c lea rly d iss ip a ted , y e t, ac c o rd in g to B u tler’ s u n d isp u ted tes tim o n y , h e c o n tin u e d to pos s es s t he gun fort w o t o fourday s . O bj ect i vel ycons i der ed, the dur es s or nece s s i t y , even i f i ni t i al l ypr es ent , had “l os ti t s coer ci ve for ce. ” See i d. a t 4 1 5 . Si nce B a iley ’s pr edi cat e fora j us t i fi cat i on i ns truct i on, pr es ent l yext antcoer ci ve fo rc e , w a s n o t m e t th e in s tru c tio n w a s p ro p e rl yre f u s e d . B u tle r c ite s s e v e ra l c a s e s f ro m o th e r c ir c u its a rg u in g fo r a c o n tr a ry re s u lt. O f c o u rse th o se c a se s, e v e n if p e rsu a siv e , ca n n o t su b stitu te fo r T e n th C irc u it p re c e d e n t. B u t th e ya re in a p p o s ite o r o n ly m a rg in a lly re le v a n t in a n ye v e n t.“Si nce the l anguage of § 922( g) ( 1) pr ohi bi t s a convi ct ed fe l on fr om even 6 p o ss e ss in g a fire a rm , the first q u e stio n is w h e th e r a ju stifica tio n d e fe n se is avai l abl e t o a § 922( g) ( 1) char ge. W e j oi n the otherci r cui t s addr es s i ng thi s i s s ue and hol d t hatt he defens e of j us t i fi cat i on m aybe ava i l abl e t o a § 922( g) ( 1) char ge. ” D el eve aux , 20 5 F . 3d at12 97 (ci t at i on s om i t t ed). “H ow ever, w e al so a g re e w ith th o se c irc u its th a t th is d e fe n se is a v a ilab le in § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ) c a se s in o n ly extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s . ” Id. (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). -9- T he fir sti s Uni t ed Stat es v. D el eve aux , 2 0 5 F . 3 d 1 2 9 2 (11 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). In 6 D el eve aux , t he governm entand the defendantpr es ent ed di ffe r entver s i on of event s . A ccor di ng t o D el evea ux: hi s w i fe w as underatt ack f r om a nei ghbor w i el di ng a fi r earm ; he r eac t ed byobt ai ni ng a 9mm handgun fr om a pl ace s he had hi dden i ti n t he att i c and e xchange d fi r e w i th the i ntruder ; he knew hi s w i fe ow ned a gun a nd w her e s he kepti ti n herhous e ( theyhad bee n es tr anged a nd l i vi ng apartw hen he c ame t o t hatknow l edge – he l at erm oved bac k i nt o the hom e) ; he had ne verhandl ed the gun unt i l t he dayof the i nci dent ; aft ert he a lte rc a tio n , h e p la c e d th e g u n b a c k in th e a ttic . Id. at1294. T he tr i al j udge th o u g h t a ju stifica tio n in stru c tio n “ w a s a ‘c lo se q u e stio n .’ . . . [b u t] d e c id e d to ‘e rr [ ] o n th e sid e o f

g iv in g th e d e fe n d a n t th e o p p o rtu n ityto a rg u e th is m a tter to t he j ur y . ’ ” Id. at1295. T he governm ent , havi ng obt ai ned a c onvi ct i on, di d not appea l fr om t hatdeci s i on. T he onl yi s s ue befor e the Seventh C i r cui tw as w hether j us t i fi cat i on i s an affi r m at i ve defens e, pl aci ng the bur den of pr oof on the defe ndant( t he courtconcl uded i tw as ) . Si nce the pr opr i etyof the j us t i fi cat i on i ns t ruct i on gi ven byt he tr i al j udge w as notar gued ordeci ded i n D el eve aux and t he i s s ue the D el eve aux cour tdi d deci de i s notpr es enther e, w e fa i l t o s ee the-10-

r el evanc e of thatcas e. B ut l ernextpoi nt s t o Un itedS ta tes v . P a o lello , 9 5 1 F . 2 d 5 3 7 (3d C ir . 1991) . Paol el l o t es t i fi ed he w as att acke d, di s arm ed hi s as s ai l ant , and r an aw ay w i t h t he gun – an a ctof s el f pr es ervat i on. A pol i ce offi ceron the s cene s aw Paol el l o fl eei ng dow n an al l eyand or der ed hi m t o s t op. Paol el l o di s car ded the g u n b u t k e p t ru n n in g u n til a p p re h e n d e d b ya n o th e r o ffic e r. Id. at538- 39. T he d is tr ic t c o u rt re f

u s e d to g iv e a ju s tific a tio n in s tru c tio n ; th e T h ir d C ir c u it r e v e rs e d . Id. a t 5 3 9 , 5 4 4 . T h e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls a p p lied th e e q u iv a len t o f o u r fo u r-p a rt Vig il te s t, Id. at540, and adopt ed the rul e “a n i nt er di ct ed per s on m aypos s es s the fi r earm no l ongert han abs ol ut el ynece s s ary . ” Id . at 54 1 (cit ati o n s o m itted). It concl uded Paol el l o w as ent i t l ed t o a j us t i fi cat i on i ns truct i on “[b]ecause w e m ustaccep ti n the procedu ral po sture of thi s case P a o lello ’s v e rsio n o f

th e fa c ts in th e re c o rd , ita p p e a rs th a t P a o lello d id n o t m a in tain p o ss e ss io n o f th e w e a p o n a n ylo n g e r th a n a b so lu tely nece s s ary . T hus , even i f w e fi nd Paol el l o’ s t es t i m onyunper s uas i ve, hi s cr edi bi l i t ys houl d be j udged bythe j ury . ” Id . a t 5 4 3 . P a o lello har dl yequat es w i th thi s cas e. Fi r s t , ther e i s no fac tual dis pu t e here, as there w as i n P aolel l o. W e accep tB utl er’ s vers i on of ev ents , w i t houtr egar d t o confl i ct i ng evi dence . Second, pos s es s i on of a f i r earm fora fe w m o m e n ts in a n a d re n a lin ru sh w h ile flee in g f ro m a v io len t en c o u n ter is a w o rld a p a rt f ro m B u tler’ s c o n tin u e d p o ss e ss io n o f th e fire a rm fo r w e e k s a n d e sp e c ially fo r a p e ri o d o f

tw o to fo u r d a y s a f

te r a n yc re d ib le th re a t h a d b e e n e lim in a te d . Fi nal l y , B ut l err efe r s us t o Uni t ed Stat es v. G om ez , 9 2 F . 3 d 7 7 0 (9th C ir .-11-

1996) . G om ez w as acqui t t ed of s t at e l aw char ges . K now i ng he w oul d s oon be r el eas ed fr om the j ai l , one of the otheri nm at es s ol i ci t ed G om ez t o ki l l a number of peopl e i n excha nge fors ubs t ant i al s um s of m oney . G om ez r eport ed the s ol i ci t at i on t o t he guar ds and coope r at ed w i th l aw enfor cementi n gather i ng e v id e n c e a g a in s t th e in m a te . Id. a t 7 7 2 . A lth o u g h th e g o v e rn m e n t p ro m ise d to keep hi s i dent i t ys ecr etand t o pr ot ecthi m , i tfai l ed; G om ez’ s ful l name w as di s cl os ed i n t he i ndi ctm entagai ns tthe i nm at e. G om ez be gan t o r ece i ve w r i t t en and verbal death t hr eat s and l earned ther e w as a contr actoutforhi s l i fe. W hen he r epor t ed thi s t o fede r al agent s , theyr efus ed t o t ake hi m i nt o pr ot ect i ve c u s to d y . Id . at773. H e al s o w entt o the s her i ff, hi s par ol e off i cer , and l ocal chur ches forhel p. H e w entt o t he new s paperw i th hi s s t or y . G om ez moved fr om o n e h o u s e to a n o th e r, a n d e v e n w e n t h o m e le s s in a n a tte m p t to a v o id d a n g e r. Fi nal l y , G om ez w entt o hi s par ol e off i cerand l i ed, cl ai m i ng he w as us i ng i l l egal drugs . T hatl ed t o hi s i ncar cer at i on, w her e he r ece i ved a w r i t t en dea th thr eat f r o m a n i n ma t e . Up o n r e l e a s e , h e r e c e i v e d y e ta n o th e rd e a th th r e a t . On th e s a me d a y , G o m e z to o k p o s s e s s io n o f a 1 2 -g a u g e s h o tg u n to p ro te c t h im s e lf. Id. at773- 7 4 . T w o d a y s la ter , fe d e ra l ag e n ts s e rv e d h im w ith a su b p o e n a a n d fo u n d h im w i t h t he s hot gun. T he N i nt h C i r cui tr ever s ed G om ez’ s convi ct i on beca us e the d is tr ic t c o u rt fa ile d to in s tru c t th e ju ry o n ju s tific a tio n . Id. at778. B u tle r a rg u e s h is p re d ic a m e n t w a s o n th e s a m e o rd e r a s th a t o f G o m e z . U nl i ke B ut l er , how ever , G om ez r ece i ved s ever al death thr eat s , both i n per s on and-12-

in w ri tin g . See i d. a t7 7 6 . G o m e z b e h a v e d a s i f h e w a s c o n c e rn e d fo rh i s s a fe t y – he moved fr om hom e t o hom e and s oughtpr ot ect i on fr om fede r al agent s , the l ocal s h e ri ff, a n d h is p a ro le o ffic e rs . See Al

- R ekabi , 454 F. 3d at1125 ( cons i der i ng defe ndant ’ s r es pons e t o al l eged thr eatas evi dence of w hetherthe defendant bel i eved the thr eatt o be i m m i nent ) . B ut l erdi d nothi ng of the s or tand af t erthe m ur derpl otw as cal l ed off, B ut l erconce ded he w as no l ongerafr ai d. I n G om ez t he cr i t i cal ques t i on, w hethert he dange r“had l os ti t s coer ci ve for ce, ” w as su fficie n tlyin d o u b t to re q u ire ju ryre so lu tio n . T h e fa c tu a l lan d sc a p e h e re is e n tir e ly d iffe re n t. W e mustt ake c ar e nott o t r ans form the narr ow , non- s t atut or yj us t i fi cat i on e x c e p tio n to th e fe d e ra l an ti-fe lo n law in to so m e th in g p e rm itt in g a fe lo n to p o sses s a w ea p o n fo r ex tend ed p eriod s o f ti m e in re li an ce o n so m e v ag u e “ fe ar” of st reetviol ence. I nd eed, “[i ]f ex-fel on s w ho feel end ang ered can carrygu ns, fel on- i n- pos s es s i on l aw s w i l l be dea d l et t er s . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. P er ez , 86 F. 3d 735, 737 ( 7t h C i r . 1996) . B yi ns i s t i ng thatthe evi dence of a thr eatof s er i ous inju ryo r d e a th is a c tu a lly“ p re se n t, i m m in e n t an d im p e n d in g ,” w e w ill a v o id th is u n d e s ir a b le re s u lt. See Vig il , 743 F. 2d 755. T he d i stri ctcou rtdid not err i n d eny i ng a j ust i fi cat i on i nst ruct i on becau se B ut l er ’ s evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o perm i tthe j ur yt o r eas onabl yfi nd the co n ti n u ing u rge n t dan g er req u ir ed b yo u r ca ses. T h e c ir cu m stan ce s o f B u tl er’sI n a gl obal vi ew of the cr i m i nal j us t i ce pr oces s , t he fa cta fe l on 7 v o lu n ta ri ly, al b e it b e la te d ly, su rr e n d e re d a fir e a rm to th e p o lic e is n o t ir re le v a n t. S u re lyit i s a fa c to r fo r p ro se c u to rs in th e e x e rc ise o f c h a rg in g d isc re tio n . It i s al s o a cons i der at i on forj udges i n the exe r ci s e of thei rdi s cr et i on i n cr aft i ng a re a s o n a b le s e n te n c e . See Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220, 260- 62, 265 (20 0 5 ). T h at safetyv alve is ev iden t here , w h ere the c o u rtm ad e a d o w n w ard departur e. -13- cas e ar e bet t er cons i der ed as m i t i gat i on of puni s hm ent t han exone r at i on of 7 c ri m in a l b e h a v io r. B . R eas onabl e, l egal al t ernat i ves t o vi ol at i ng the l aw B ut l erfai l ed on the fi r s tpr ong of the Vig il t es tand thati s s uffi ci entt o end th e m a tter. H o w e v e r, to b e th o ro u g h w e a d d re ss th e th ird p ro n g in re sp o n se to B ut l er ’ s ar gum ent s . I tr equi r es B ut l ert o s how he had no r eas onabl e, l egal a lte rn a tiv e s to p o s s e s s in g th e g u n . Id . a t 7 5 5 . G om ez se rv e s a s a p o ss ib le e x a m p le o f

a n a rg u a b le c a se fo r a th o ro u g h a n d p rin c ip led e x h a u stio n o f a v a ilab le le g a l a lte rn a tiv e s to ille g a l p o s s e s s io n o f a fir e a rm – o n e g ro u n d e d in s e lf d e fe n s e . B ycompar i s on, B ut l er ’ s evi dence cl ear l yappea r s w ant i ng. N everthel es s , he cl ai m s i tt o be s uffi ci ent , r el y i ng on Un i t e dS ta t e s v . Ne wc o mb , 6 F .3 d 1 1 2 9 (6 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). New com b p ro v id e s c o ld c o m fo rt. N ew comb w as char ged w i th unl aw ful pos s es s i on of a f i r earm and a m m u n itio n . Id . at1130. A pol i ce offi cerobs erved a gr oup of thr ee pe opl e i n an a lle y . Id . at1130- 31. Som eone the off i ceri dent i fi ed as t he t al l es tof the thr ee pl ace d a tw o footl ong dark obj ecti nt o an aba ndoned couc h i n an al l ey . W hen the offi cerpat t ed dow n N ew comb, he found four12- gauge s hot gun s hel l s . H e then-14-

found a s aw ed- off 12- gauge s hot gun i n the couc h. T he off i ceri dent i fi ed N ew com b, t he tal l estperson, as the o ne w ho pu tthe g un i n the cou ch. D efen se w itn e ss e s te stified N e w c o m b h a d g o n e o u t w ith o th e rs to fin d a n d d iss u a d e h is gi r l fr i end’ s s on, w ho w as i n a murde r ous r age, fr om ki l l i ng anotherw i th a s h o tg u n . T h e yfo u n d th e s o n a n d N e w c o m b m a n a g e d to w re s t th e g u n f ro m h im . A ft erN ew comb re m oved the s hel l s , the s on agai n t ook pos s es s i on of the gun and p la c e d it in th e c o u c h , v o w in g to g e t a n o th e r g u n to s h o o t h is in te n d e d v ic tim . I n Ne wc o mb , as i tdoes her e, the governm entar gued the defendanthad ot her , pl aus i bl e al t ernat i ves t o vi ol at i ng the s t atut e – i ncl udi ng havi ng s om eone e ls e p o s s e s s th e w e a p o n o r c a llin g la w e n fo rc e m e n t to h a n d le th e p ro b le m . Id. at 1137. T he Si xt h C i r cui thel d t he j ur ym i ghtr eas onabl yfi nd N ew comb had no r eas onabl e al t ernat i ves t o i l l egal pos s es s i on of the gun i f i tfound he w as fac ed w i t h an em ergency s i tuat i on. B uti n doi ng s o, the Ne wc o mb courtnot ed that us ual l y , w hen a de fenda nt ’ s conducts pans a per i od of t i m e, ther e ar e other a lte rn a tiv e s to th e ille g a l c o n d u c t. T h a t p o in t w a s n o t lo st h e re . A c c o rd in g to th e d istric t co u rt: [W ] e don’ teven ha ve t o as s um e thathe coul d have gone t o the pol i ce. H e metw i t h t he pol i ce on O ct ober27th and di dn’ tm ent i on i t . A nd i tw as n’ tunt i l t he s econd meet i ng thathe s ai d I have s om ethi ng t o gi ve y ou. T he defendanthad s i x w eeks t o cont actthe pol i ce a nd s ay , l ook, s om eone w ant s t o ki l l s om eone e l s e; theygave m e a gun t o do i t ; I w antt o turn them i n, and al ong the w ay , I w ant t o gi ve y ou t he gun. H e di d notdo that . H e s atback a nd cont i nued to p o s s e s s th e g u n fo r s ix w e e k s .See Al

- R ekabi , 454 F. 3d at1122 n. 7 ( not i ng court s have a s s um ed a 8 j us t i fi cat i on defe ns e appl i es , al t hough the s t atut e does notexpl i ci t l ypr ovi de for su ch a d efen se). B u tle r e x p la in e d h e “ d id n ’t b e lie v e in th e p ro te c tio n o f th e p o lic e fo rc e ,” 9 and expl ai ned he be l i eved G om ez’ s “homeboy s ” coul d gett o hi m even i f the p o lic e a rr e s te d G o m e z . (R . V o l. I II a t 9 5 .) -15- (R . V o l. I II a t 1 7 2 -7 3 .) B u tl er c o n ce d ed h e n ev er a sk ed the o fficers fo r pro tecti o n fro m G o m ez . In expl anat i on forthatfai l ur e he c l ai m ed nott o trus tthe off i cer s t o pr ot ecthi m and hi s fami l y . H e cl ai m ed s uch pr ot ect i on onl yhappens “i n the movi es . ” (Id. at 91 . ) W e ca nnotful l yi m agi ne the di ffi cul tyfac ed bys om eone i n the s i tuat i on B ut l er d e sc rib e d . N e v e rth e les s, C o n g re ss h a s d e c lar e d th a t fe lo n s a re n o t to b e in p o s s e s s i o n o f

fi r e a r ms . 1 8 U. S . C. § 9 2 2 . Al th o u g h , a l o n g wi th o th e rc o u r t s , we h a v e a p p lied a n e x c e p tio n to th is g e n e ra l ru le, th e e x c e p tio n is n a rro w a n d is 8 a p p ro p ri a te o n ly in e x tr a o rd in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See, e. g. , A l

- R ekabi , 454 F. 3d at 1 1 2 1 ( “ Th e n e c e s s i t yd e fe n s e i s a n a rr o w e x c e p t i o n t o s tr i n g e n tfe d e r a l fi r e a r ms law s.” ); D el eve aux , 205 F. 3d at1297 ( “[T] hi s defe ns e i s avai l abl e i n § 922( g) ( 1) c a se s in o n lye x tra o rd in a ryc irc u m sta n c e s.” ); P a o lello , 951 F. 2d at542 ( “The re s tr ic tiv e a p p ro a c h [ to th e ju s tific a tio n d e fe n s e ] i s s o u n d .” ). B ut l er ’ s exper i ence s m ayw el l have l ed hi m t o be hes i t anti n trus t i ng l aw e n fo rc e m e n t to k e e p h im a n d h is fa m ilysa fe , b u t su c h d istru st d o e s n o t elim in a te 9 pr om ptr el i nqui s hm entof the gun and di s cl os ur e of the ci r cumst ance s t o the pol i ce a s a r eas onabl e l egal al t ernat i ve. W i thouts ubs t ant i al and compel l i ng-16-

pr oof, as i n G om ez , di s t rus tof off i ci al s i s m uch t oo conveni entas a pos thoc ra tio n a liz a tio n fo r i lle g a l p o s s e s s io n . C f . Uni t ed Stat es v. Har

per , 466 F. 3d 634, 648 ( 8t h C i r . 2006) ( w her e a de fenda ntcl ai m ed he ha d no fai th i n l aw enfor cementbeca us e he w as t hr eat ened bya deputy , the courtappl i ed the rul e “a d e fe n d a n t' s s u bjec tiv e b e lief th a t g o in g to law e n fo rc e m e n t w o u ld p ro v e f u til e is i ns uffi ci entt o m eett he obj ect i ve s t andar d thatther e w as no r eas onabl e, l egal a lte rn a tiv e to v io la tin g th e la w .” ), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 7 S .C t. 15 0 4 (2 0 0 7 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Huds on , 4 1 4 F .3 d 9 3 1 , 9 3 4 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (w h e re d e fe n d a n t cla im e d to b e a f ra id o f a “ ro g u e ” p o lice o ffice r, “[ o ]n e re a so n a b le a ltern a tiv e fo r [ d e fe n d a n t] w as t o r eportheral l eged fearof the r ogue off i cert o r es pons i bl e l aw enfor cement a u th o ri tie s .” ), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 6 S .C t. 17 6 9 (2 0 0 6 ); G om ez , 92 F. 3d at777 ( not i ng t hatdefe ndants oughthel p fr om fede r al agent s , the s her i ff, hi s par ol e off i cerand lo c a l c h u rc h e s ). D i ffi cultcho i ces m ayem anate fr om fede ral fi rearm s l aw s, w hich “i m po se s o m e th in g a p p ro a c h in g a b s o lu te lia b ility.” Uni t ed Stat es v. A dki ns , 196 F. 3d 1112, 1115 ( 10t h C i r . 1999) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . I ti s one of the bur dens of a fel onyconvi ct i on. W hi l e B ut l er ’ s al t ernat i ves m ayhave be en uncomfor t abl e, a pr om pts ur r enderof the fi r earm w as noti m pos s i bl e. AF F I RMED .