N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. SER GIO R

AM IR EZ GUDINO, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-10556

D.C . No. 5:14-c r-00303-LHK-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia L uc y H. Koh, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 16, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GOULD, C LIFTON, a nd WATFORD , C irc uit Judge s. Se rgio R am ire z Gudino a ppe a ls his c onvic tion of posse ssion with inte nt to distributem e tha

m phe tam ine on the grounds tha t the distric t c ourt e rrone ously pre c lude d him from

a sse rting a

dure ss de fe nse at tria l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

n d we a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED D EC 07 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.A y e ar a fte r be i ng c ha rge d with onec ount of posse ssion with inte nt to distributem e tha

m phe tam ine in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 841(a )(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), Gudino told the distric t c o urt tha

t he inte nde d to pre s e nt a dure ss de fe nse a t t

ria l. The gove rnm e nt sought to pre c l ude this de fe nse in a pre t ria l m otion in limine . Gudino subm itte d a n offe r of proof sum

m a riz i ng his dure ss c la im . In short, Gudino a sse rte d tha t a m an whom

Gudino did not know visite d Gudino’ s re side nc e and instruc te d Gudino to se ll m e tha m phe tam ine on be ha lf of a

na rc otic s tra ffic ke r in M e xic o. Afte r one of Gudino’ s two brothe rs wa s kille d in Láz a

ro C árde na s, M ic hoa c án, the sa m e unknown m a

n re turne d to Gudino’ s re side nc e twic e , a ga in instruc ting Gudino to se ll m e tha m p he tam ine . The
m an m a d e thre a ts sugge sting tha t Gudino’ s re m a ining brothe r— who a lso live d in M ic hoa c án—

would be kille d if Gudino did not se ll the m e tha m phe t am ine
. Alle ge dly fe aring for his re m a ining brothe r’ s sa fe ty , Gudino a tte m pte d to se ll the
m e tha m phe tam ine . The distric t c ourt found this proffer insuffic ie nt a s a m a tte r of la w a nd pre c lude d

Gudino from

a sse rting this dure ss de fe n se at tria l. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s de c i sion pre c luding Gudino’ s dure ss de fe nse de nov o . Unite d State

s v . C hi Tong K uok , 671 F.3d 931, 947 (9th C ir. 2012). To be suffic ie nt, a

pre tria l proffe r of dure ss m ust offe r e vide nc e tha

t, if c re dite d,
e sta blishe s tha

t Gudino (1) “wa s unde r an im m e diate thre a t of de a th or se rious
2bodily

injury ,” (2) “ ha d a

we ll grounde d fe ar that the thre a t would bec arrie d out,”
and (3) “ ha d no re a sona

ble opportunity

to e sc a pe .” Id
. W e a gre e with thedistric t c ourt tha t Gudino’ s proffe r did not e sta blish the first e le m e n t of im

m e dia c y . Suc h a

thre at “ m ust be ‘ pre se n t, im

m e diate , or im pe nding,’ suc h that the de fe n da nt’ s pe rse c utors ‘ figurative ly he ld a gun to his he a d’ (or to his fa

m ily ’ s he a ds) c om

pe lling thede fe nda

nt to c om m it the ille ga l
a c tion.” U

nite d State

s v . Vasque

z-Landav e r , 527 F.3d 798, 802 (9th C ir. 2008) (quoting Unite d State

s v . C o n te nto-Pac hon , 723 F.2d 691, 694 (9th C ir. 1984); Unite d State s v . Shry oc k, 342 F.3d 948, 988 (9th C ir. 2003)). The fa c ts in Gudino’ s proffe r did not m e e t this thre shold. C ontra ry to Gudino’ s a sse rtion, this
c a se is unlike C

onte nto-Pac hon or C

hi Tong K uok
. In both those

c a se s, the thre a te ning pa

rty de m onstra

te d intim a te knowle dge of the de fe nda nts’ fam i ly
m e m b e rs’ whe re a

bouts, a s we ll a s a

c a pa c i ty to ha rm the fam ily

m e m be rs. Gudino’ s proffe r a lle g e d no fa c ts sugge sting tha t the unna m e d visitor knew whe re Gudino’ s re m a i ning brothe r live d, or a nything e lse a

bout Gudino’ s fam i ly , othe r tha n the fa c t tha

t his othe r brothe r wa s no longe r a l ive
. Furthe r, the thre a t Gudino proffe re d wa s ne ithe r “ spe c i fic ” nor “ dire c t.” Se e C hi Tong K uok , 671 F.3d a

t 948–49. To the c ontra

ry , the thre a t

a g a inst Gudino’ s re m a ining brothe r wa s va gue . W e have he ld tha t sim ila r thre at s to kill a

fam ily
3m e m

b e r— e ve n whe n the de fe nda nt le gitim a te ly

fe are d the thre a t—

without m ore , we re insuffic i e nt to e sta

blish theim

m e d ia c y e le m e nt of dure ss. Se e

, e .g. , Vasque

zLandav e r , 527 F.3d a

t 803–04; Unite d State

s v . Houston , 648 F.3d 806, 816 (9th C ir. 2011); Unite d State

s v . Be c e rra , 992 F.2d 960, 964 (9th C ir. 1993). B e c a use we hold tha

t Gudino’ s proffe r did not de m o nstra te an im m e diate thre a t, we ne e d not a ddre ss the pa rtie s ’ argum e nts re g arding the othe r two e le m e nts. AFFIRM E D.

4