Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40491 Su m m ar yC al endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. ERI K AL FR EDO CONSTANTE , D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 7: 08- C R

- 501- 1
B ef ore B E N AV ID E S , P R A D O an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Erik Al f r e do Cons t ant e a ppe al s hi s j ur y t r i alc o nvi c t i o n f o rb a n kf

r auda nd
em bezzl em en tan d f

or t h ef t , em bezzl em en t , or m i sapp l i cat i on by a ba n k of f i cer o re m p lo y e e . H e a ls o a p p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e rt h a t, a s a c o n d itio n o f h is supervi se d r el eas e, he i s r equi r ed t o pay r es t i t ut i on i n t he am ount of $100, 000
w i th i n 90 da ys o f h is r e l ea se from i n ca rcera ti on . C on stan te w a s sen ten ced to t e r m s o f

i m pr i s o nm e nto f

3 6 m o nt hs o n e ac h c o unt , t he t e r m s t o r un concu rrently, an d to concu rrent f ive- year t erm s of

sup ervi sed rel ease.

United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 7, 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-40491 Document: 00511133909 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/07/2010N o. 09- 40491

2 Cons t ant e a r gue s t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur ta bus e d it s di s c r e t i o n i n r e f us i ng t o g ive t he j ur y an i ns t r uc t i o n o n t he a f f i r m at ive de fe ns e o f dur e s s . H e c o nt e nds th a t h is te s tim o n yp e r m itt e dara tio n a l ju r yto co n c lu d e th a t h e ille g a lly
w i t hdr e w f

unds f r o m t he ac c o unt o f a ba nk c us t o m e r be c aus e o f an i m m i ne nt t h reatt o hi s fam i l y m em bers and becau se he h ad no l egal al t erna t ive. Adefen da n ti s entit l ed t o a j u ry i n st ructi on on the af f i rm ative defense of dur e s s i f

he carri es hi s b ur de n o f s ho w i ng t hathe w as s ubj e c tt o a n i m m i ne nt andi m pe ndi ng t hr e att hati nduc e s f e ar o f de at h o r s e r i o us b o dil y i nj ur y, t hathe hadno trec kl e s s l y pl ac e d hi m s e l f i n s uc h c i r c um s t anc e s , a nd thathe ha d no
r e a s o n a b l e a l t e r n a t iv e b u tt o v i o l a t e t h e l a w t o a v o i d t h e t h r e a t e n e dh a r m. Un i t ed S t ate s v. Posad a-R i os , 158 F. 3d 832, 873 ( 5t h C i r . 1998)
. The t hre at
m u st be a “rea l em erg en cy l ea vin g n o t i m e to p u rsu e a n y lega laltern a tive . ” I d.
a t 8 7 4
. Cons t ant e t e s t i f

i e d t hata l lt he t hr e at s m ad e ag ai ns t hi m w e r e v e rba la nd t hathe w as ne ve rt hr e at en ed w i t h a g un o ra ny o t he rw e ap o n. Al t ho ught he f i rstt h reatw as m ad e i n l ate Feb rua ry, he d i d n othea r f rom an ot h er perpetr ator unt i lm i d- M ar c h, a nd he t o o k no s t e ps dur i ng t hatt i m e t o al e r tt he bankt o t he
s c he m e o rt o o bt ai n l e ga la s s i s t anc e . H e a l s o ha d t he o ppo r t uni t y af t e rr e c e ivi ng a t e xtm e s s ag e t o a l e r ta ut ho r i t i e s t hatan ex t o r t i o ni s tw o ul d be co m i ng t o t he ba nk t o t ak e t he f

unds , b uthe fail e d t o d o so. Af t e ri l l e ga l l y w i t hdr awi ng t he fu n d s , C o n s ta n te v o lu n ta r ilyre tu r n e de v id e n c e o f th e e x to r tio n t o h is extor t i on i st s. T h e rec ord, i n cl u di n g C on st an t e ’ s o w n t est i m on y, sup ports t h e di st ri ct c our t ’ s det er m i nat i on t hatC ons t ant e fai l ed t o c ar r y hi s burde n of s how i ng t hat h e w a s s u bje c t t o a n im m in e n t a n dim p e n d in gth r e a t t h a t i n d u c e dav a lid ap preh en si on of

death or ser i ou s bodi ly i nj u ry. N or di d h e present evi de n ce sho w i ng t hathe had no vi abl e l egalal t er nat i ve to en gagi ng i n t he c r i m i nal
a c t iv it y . T h e d is t r ic t c o u r t d id n o t a b u s e it s d is c r e t io n in d e n y in gC o n s t a n t e ’s
r e q u e s t fo raju r yin s tr u c tio n o n d u r e s s . Posad a-R i os , 158 F. 3d at873- 75. Case: 09-40491 Document: 00511133909 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/07/2010N o. 09- 40491

3 C on st an t e argu es t h at, i n l i gh t of t h e i n f orm ati on i n t h e p re sen t en ce r e po r t( PSR ) s ho w i ng hi s f i n an ci ali nab i l i t y t o pa y i m m e di at e r e s t i t ut i o n, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tc o m m i t t e d p l ai n e r r o rb y o r de r i ng hi m t o m ak e as i ngl e l um p s um r es t i t ut i on paym entof $100, 000 w i t hi n 90 days of h i s r el eas e. H e c ont ends t hat t h e di st ri ctcourt di d not i n di cat e t h at itha d consi dered h i s f i n an ci alres ou rces a n dob l i ga ti on s i n acco rdw ith 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 36 6 4 (f )( 2 ) a n d , thu s, ab u sed i ts d i scre ti on an dplain l y e rred i n sch ed u l i n g th e lum p su m pa ym en t. B ecau se C on st an t e di d n otrai se hi s § 366 4(f ) ( 2) argu m en t i n t h e di st ri ct c o u r t, th is cla im is re v ie w e dfo rp la in e r r o ro n ly
. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. How ard , 220 F
. 3d 645 , 6 47 ( 5th C i r. 200 3)
. Sect i on 366 4(f ) ( 2) requi res t h e di st ri ctcourt i n sett i n g a rest i t u t i on p aym en tto con si der t h e defen da n t ’ s f i n an ci alres ou rces an d assets , hi s proj ect ed earn i n gs an d i n com e, an d h i s f in an ci alobl i gati on s. T h i s c ou rtw i l lrevers e a di st ri ctcourt ’ s d e cisio n c on cerni n g t h e sc h edu l i n g of
r e s t i t ut i o n pa ym e nt s o nl y i f t he de fe nda ntc an s ho w “ t hati ti s pr o ba bl e t hatt he d i stri ct cou rt fa i l ed to con sideron e of the m a n d a tory factors a n dthe fa i l u re to c ons i dert hatfac t ori nf l uence d t he cou rt. ” Un itedS ta tes v. S ch in n ell , 80 F. 3d 1 0 6 4 , 1 0 7 0 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). T h e P S R re fle c te dth a t C o n s ta n te h a dca s h a s s e ts o f o n ly$ 1 3 0 0 , am o n th ly
car n ot e of $3 95 on a v eh i cl e w ort h $18 , 000 , an d credi tcard debt of $60 0. O t h er t h an i t s det erm i n ati on t h at C on st an t e coul d not af f ord t o pa y a f

i n e, t h e di st ri ct c o u r t m a d e n o re fe r e n c e to C o n s ta n te ’ s lim ite dfin a n c ia l re s o u r c e s a n dm e r e ly
surm i sed t h at he ha d h i dd en t h e st ol en f u n ds. T h e r e c o r dd o e s n o tr e fl e c tth a tth e d is t r ic tc o u r tc o n s id e r e dC o n s t a n t e ’s l i m i t ed f

i n an ci alres ou rces i n orderi n g h i s i m m edi ate r est i t u t i on p a y m e n t of $10 0, 000 as a cond i t i on of h i s sup ervi sed rel ease. T h eref ore, t h e di st ri ctcourt p la in lye r r e d in r e q u ir in gth e im m e d ia te p a y m e n t o f th e re s tit u tio n . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. M

yers , 1 9 8 F .3 d1 6 0 , 1 6 9 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). Cons t ant e ’ s c o nvi c t i o n a nd s e nt e nc e a r e a f f i r m e d, e xc e pt for t he requ i rem en tt h at he payt h e f u l lam ou n to f

res t i t u t i on i m m edi ately; t h at part Case: 09-40491 Document: 00511133909 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/07/2010N o. 09- 40491

4 o f t he se nt e nc e i s v ac at e d a nd r e m and e d f o rr e c o ns i de r at i o n o f t he s c he dul i ng o f th e re s tit u tio n p a y m e n t. S eeid
. AF F I RMED I N P AR T , S ENT ENC E VA CATE D I N P AR T A ND RE M AND ED
. Case: 09-40491 Document: 00511133909 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/07/2010