The Honor able John R. Gibs on, Senior Circuit J udg e, United States Court of Appe als for * the Eig hth Circuit, sit ting by desig nation. File Na me: 08a0493n.06 Filed: August 13, 2008 NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

No. 07-5598 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT United States of Amer ica, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. Robert Howe , De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

B e fo re : KE I TH , G RI F F I N, and GI B SON , Cir c uit

Judg e s. * DAMON J. KEI TH, Circuit J udg e. Robert How e appe als his convi ct i o n for a ssaulting a n inm a te , r e sis tin g arr e st a

nd a ssa ult ingan o f

f i c e r , a n d p o s s e s s i n g

p ri so n- ma de we a

po ns . H ow e c la ims that th e dis tr ic t c ourt

e rr e d b y e xclu din g e vid e nc e re la tin g to t he a ffirm ative de fe ns e of dure ss, denying his motion for a cquittal or a ne w trial, and r efusing t o i s s u e Ho we’s supplemental jury instructions on Counts I I Iand I V. For the following rea sons, we AF F IRM the dec i s i o n o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

. I. Whil e De fenda

nt-Appellant Rober

t Howe ( “Howe ”) w as an inmate at the United States Penitentiary

BigSandy

(“B ig Sandy”), he was indicted for: (1) assaulting an inmate with the intent to m ur de r i n v iol a tio n o f 1 8 U.S. C. § 113( a )( 1) ; (2) a ssa ult ing an inmate wi th the int e nt to d o b od ilyNo. 07-5598

United States Pag e 2 harm i n v i o lation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)( 3); (3) a ssaulting, r esisting, a nd impeding a

Fe dera l law enfor ceme nt office r i n violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a) (1); (4) threatening to murder a corr ectional office r in vi o l at i o n of 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)( 1)(B ); and (5) possessing se vera l prison-made w eapons in v iol a tio n o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 17 91 (a )( 2)

. (J.A

. 20 -2 3. ) Pr ior to tr ia l, t he dis tr ic t c ourt

de c ide d to ho ld i n ab ey ance the g overnme nt’s motion in limine to p r e c lu d e H o w e f r o m a s s e rti n g th e d e f

e n s es of duress, justification, and se lf-def ense. H owe de posed two fe llow inmates, J es s e S p ro use and Kenne th Bates, prior to trial to g ive testimony relating to his d ef

en s e of dur ess. I n response , the g overnme nt filed a notice objecting t o their deposition testimony , and the district cour t issued an order and opinion prec luding How e fr om asserting duress, a nd limi t i n g the use of Sprouse ’s and Ba tes ’ s te s ti mo n y d

u r in g tr ia l. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt a ls o r e f u s e d to g iv e ju

r y in s tr u c ti o n s on the defe nses of dure ss, justi fication, and self-de fense

. Af t er t ri al , t h e ju ry co n v i ct ed Ho we o f as s au l t i n g a fe l l o w i n m at e, as s au l t i n g , o p p o s i n g, impeding a

nd resisting a co r

r e c ti o n a l o f

f ic e r, and posse ssing thre e prison-ma de we apons. Howe then fi le d a mot ion fo r a c qu itt a l or

a ne w tri a l, w hic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d. Ho we wa s se nte nc e d to 11 0 mo nth s im

pr iso nme nt. II. The c ircumstance s leading to Howe’ s indictments are a s follows. On J uly 20, 2005, Howe, while an inmate a

t Big Sandy , stabbed a

fellow inmate, Orlando R oberts, in the head with a 5-inch plastic wea

pon, stating, “ I ’ll kill y ou, mother fuc ker.” Un ite d Stat es v. H owe , 2007 WL 1248050,

a t *2 (E .D . K

y . Apr . 3 0, 20 07). Cor

re c tio na l O ff

ic e r C hr is A dams atte mpt e d to sto p th e fi g ht,

or de ri ngbo th H ow e and Rob e rt s to stop and g e t on the g ro un d. Af

te r t he y fa ile d to c omp ly , A damsNo. 07-5598

United States Pag e 3 tried to phy sically

brea k up the fig ht, a

nd Howe alleg edly attempted to sta b Adams in the stomach. Eventually , Adams, alongwith L ieutenant Ga ry Br ian Crowe, w ere able to s u b d u e Howe a nd Roberts, but Howe c ontinued to resist. After sear ching Howe’ s person a nd his cell , Adams and Crowe f ound prison-made wea

pons in his possession. H o w e p u r

p o rt s t o b e a

m e mb e r o f t h e “ L a t i nK i n g s , ” ana c t i v e g an g w i t h i nB i g S a n dy. Acc ording to H owe, the L atin King s have r ules that requir e member s to actively defe nd the g ang and its honor. H owe testified that he knew of other prior

situations in which L atin King g angmembers had bee n beate n for violating “cha rter r ules.” (J.A. 547-48.) I n Howe’ s case , the dispute betwee n inmate R oberts and himself arose when he confr onted the pe op le wo rk ingon

his sh if t a bo ut h is “ mis sin g stu ff

.” Ho we te sti fi e d o n avo wa l: Iwa s t ak i n g s tu ff

o u to f t h e k i t ch en , an d

m y s tu ff k ep tco m i n g u p m i s s i n g. So I was try

ing to f igur e out who exactly

was, y ou know, finding my stuff or taking it or telling the a dminist ration or what have you. . . . I went to eac h individual that worke d my shift . . . . Isaid, “L isten, Idon’t kn owif y ou are te lli ngon

me or any thi ng ; but if

y ou are , y ou ne e d to sto p. . . . Pl e a se don’t put me in a position where I ’m forc ed to do something .” A w e e k late r, the same inc ide nt o c c ur re d, and Ia pp ro a c he d I nmate Rob e rt s a bo ut i t. An d he wa s pr e tty a g g re ssi ve and vo c if e ro us a bo ut his re sp on se . He tol d me pretty much i n a nuts hell that he did tell on me, and ther e wa s nothing I could do about it, if Idon’t like it Icould pre tty much g o bite dust, or what have y ou. He sa id this i n front of L amonte Smith, who is the number -one r epre sentative fo r t he V ice L or ds or g a

nizatio n o n th e c omp ound , w ho is a pr iso n g angwh o is a f f i l i a t e d w i t h t h e L a t i nK i n g s v e r

y, v e r y c l o s e l y. When he said that in front of Mr . Smit h, Orlando Rober ts put me in a very serious posit i o n . I knew r ight then if Idid not do something to stop this i mminent t h r e a tf r o m c o m i n g d o w no nm y h e a d th e nI w o u l d

b e v e r y, v e r y s o r r y. Iknew f rom my knowledg e of the man i fe s t o and other things that ha d happene d inside of the prison that if I didn’t do something r ight then I was in ser ious je op ard y of los ingmy

lif e or g e tti ngbe a t do wn

fo r s ome serio us , s e ri ou s in jur ie s, beca use I have ha d to participate in doing that to other brother s my self, on the stre et and in prison.No. 07-5598

United States Pag e 4 (J.A . 5 53 -5 4. ) T hu s, Ho we e sse nti a lly c la ime d th a t he ha d to atta c k inma te Rob e rt s b e c a us e Rob e rt s

wa s a “sn itc h, ” and the ru le s o f h is g angre qu ir e d h im t o e ith e r a tta c k Ro be rt s o r b e a tta c ke d h ims e lf by a member

of his own g ang . Ho we a dd iti on a lly

a sse rt e d th a t he c ou ld n ot r e qu e st o ff ic ia l pr ote c tio n f

or fe ar of re pr isa ls from his own gang . Desc ribing the pot ential consequence s of re questing police prote ction, Howe testified: As so on

a s I c he c k in and g o in to p ro te c tio n, I mig ht sur viv e fo r a lit tle wh ile until they transfe r me to the nex t prison. And when Ig et to the next prison, I will be dealt with. My job at the L atin King s at BigSandy , Iwas the f ifth crown, I was the secr etar y . I t w as my job to write other prisons and other secr etar ies and ke ep up on the flow of pe ople moving f rom one joint to another. So i f you le ft B ig Sand y in b a d s tand ing , if

y ou were in violatio n f

or so me rea son and y ou g ot a

way from us, we would send a me ssag e to the other instit ution. And as soon as you walk out on the line y ou will be dealt with . . . (J.A. 554.) Thus, acc ording to H owe, seeking protec tion from prison authorities would only provide te mpo ra ry pr ote c tio n f

rom fel lo w ga

ngme mbe rs . H e kn e w this be c a us e he and

his fe llo w “ L a tin King s” had, in the pa st, personally enfor ced L atin King rules by ex ac t ing r eveng e on other g ang members who tr ied to seek police protec tion. III

. Howe a ppeals th e d is tric t c o u

r t’ s d e c ision to preclude his prof fer ed def ense of duress, a rg uing that he pr e se nte d s uf

fi c ie nt e vid e nc e to j us tif

y int ro du c inga

c oe rc ion or dure ss d e fe ns e a t tr ia l. T his Court re vie ws de novo “[w]hether a de fenda nt has established a pr im a fa c ie c a se of dure ss” be c a us e it is a question of law. Un i t ed States v. Johnson , 416 F.3d 464, 468 ( 6th Cir. 2005). Where the defe ndant’s evide nce is insuffic ient as a matter of law, the district c ourt may proper ly exclude suchNo. 07-5598

United States Pag e 5 evidenc e. Id. I n order to establish a prima facie case of dure ss, a def endant must show: (1) that defe ndant was under an unlawful and prese nt, imminent, an d i m p en d ing threat of such a nature a s to induc e a w ell-g rounded a pprehe nsion of death or

serious bo dil y inj ur y ; (2) that the defe ndant had not re cklessly or neg lige ntly

place d himself in a situation in w hic h it

wa s p ro ba

ble that he wo uld

be fo rc e d to c ho os e the c ri min a l c on du c t; (3) that the de fenda

nt had no re asonable , leg al alter native to violating the law, a c ha nc e bo th t o r e fu se to d o th e c ri min a l a c t and a lso to a vo id t he thr e a te ne d h arm ; (4) that a direc t causa l relationship may be r ea s o n ably

anticipated be tween the c r im in a l a c ti o nta

k e nan d th e a v o id an c e o f

th e thr e a te n e d

h ar m; [an d ] (5 ) that de fe nd ant d id n ot m a int a in t he ill e g a l c on du c t any

lon g e r t ha n a bs olute ly n e c e s s ar y. Johnson , 4 1 6 F. 3 d

at 4 6 8 (q u o t i n g Un ite d S tat es v . R iff

e , 28 F.3d 565, 569 ( 6th Cir. 199 4)) (empha sis removed). T he def ense of duress is ava ilable only in “ra re situations” a

nd “should be construed ve ry

narr owly .” United States v. Singleton , 902 F.2 d 4 7 1 , 472-73 (6th Cir. 1990). The first element requires that “ther e be an im mediate threat of de ath or ser ious bodily harm which requires the defe ndant t o commit the criminal ac t.” Un ite d Sta te s v . Ca mp be ll , 675 F.2d 815, 821 (6th Cir. 1982)

. I n arguing that he provided suff icient evidenc e of a

n immediate threat, Howe

c la ims he wo uld

have be e n atta c ke d by fe llo w g ang me mbe rs if he did no t r e ta liate a g a ins t Ro be rt s, the a lle g e d “ sn itc h. ” Th is C ourt , h ow e ve r, ha s p re vio us ly he ld t hat th e de fe ns e of dure ss i s unavailable “to a pe rson who contends that he has joined either voluntar ily or under compulsion a

c ri min a l or g anizatio n . . . , e ve n if he a sse rt s th a t he a c te d und e r t he or de rs of

that or g anization in fe ar of his life.” Cam

pb e ll , 6 7 5 F

. 2 d a t 8 2 0 ( f in d in g n o im mi n e n t o r im me d iate threa t where defe ndants wer e member s of a pr isoners’ or g anization that directed the m to commit a robbery under pai n of deat h). Ho we , w ho vo lun tari ly joi ne d th e L a tin

Ki ng s, is s imi larl y

ine lig ibl e to a sse rt

aNo. 07-5598

United States Pag e 6 defe nse of dur ess. Mo re ov e r, the te sti mony

tha t H ow e of

fe re d d id n ot i de nti fy

any sp e c if ic thre a ts m a de to Howe. Rather, t he testimony was fa r more g ener alized, focusing on a per vasive atmosphere of violence w ithin the prison, the presenc e of g ang s within Big Sandy , and the r equire ment that g ang

me mbe rs se e k r e tr ibutio n a g a ins t a “ sn itc h. ” Whe re a de fe nd ant “ su

pp or ts h is r e qu e st f

or a ne c e ssi ty instruction only with speculation and conjec ture,” the def endant ha s not established the pre sence of an imminent or immediate threa t nece ssary

for a defe nse of dur ess. United States v. Hargrov e , 416 F.3d 486, 491 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (Def endant did not fa ce a

n immediate or im m i n en t t h re at when defe ndant was a

pproac hed by

a man who told him that “he w asn’t suppo sed to be” in the neig hborhood and asked him, “ Do y ou want a drive-by or y our family to g o down or something ? ”); see also United States v . Villegas , 899 F.2d 1324, 1346 (2d Cir. 1990) (findin g t h at d ef endant’s “propose d duress de fense border s on the frivolous” whe re he “fa iled to p re s en t evidence of more than a ge nera liz ed fear, based on the reputation of the Colombian carte ls,” “did not identify any . . . specific threats,” and “ did not proffe r any evidenc e that he ha d been in immediate da ng er.” ). Howe, how ever, ar gu es that the unique cir cumstance s of prison life mer it special

c on sid e ratio n. Pr e vio us ly , th is C ourt ha s f ound su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e of

thr e a ts o f i mme diate ha

rm in the prison context where g ang members threatene d to kill the defendant in order to forc e him to car ry out an illeg al ac t. Ri

ffe , 2 8 F

. 3 d a t5 6 8

- 7 0 ( a

b r o g a t e d o no t h e r g r o u n d s b y Dixon v. U

nited States , 548 U.S. 1, 126 S.Ct

. 2437, 165 L .Ed.2d 299 (2006))

. I n that case , a def ense w itness “testified that he sawand hea

rd g angmembers thre atening[defendant] wi t h k n ives over the smugg ling of marijuana . . . and that [defenda

nt] was reas o n ab l y af

ra id for his life.” Id. at 568. I n the pre sentNo. 07-5598

United States Pag e 7 instance, h o we v er , no specific threat was eve r made ag ainst Howe. Ri ffe , th e re fo re , is distinguishable be cause , here , Howe ne ver a lleg ed havingrec eived a specific threat from any g ang members that c ompelled him to stab his fellow inmate. I f no o n e t h re at en ed Howe , he could not have f ace d an im minent threat of death or serious bodily harm. In short, the alleg ed “thr eat” was fa r too amorphous to qualify as “imminent and immediate.” The opinions of sister cir cuits are also instructive in eva luating c laims of immi nent and immediate threats w ithin the prison context. The Seventh Circuit, in United States v. Sahak ian , 453 F.3d 905, 909 ( 7th Cir. 2006), found that “the word ‘imminent’ should be construed narr owly in the prison context,” requiring t h e p ri soner to “e stablish that he experience d something more than a ‘g ener alized fea

r of attack by some unknown or unspecifie d assailant at some unknown time in the fu tu re . ’” (q u o t i n g Un ite d Stat es v . To k as h , 282 F.3d 962, 971, 966 ( 7th Cir. 2002)). I n finding that the def endant wa s not entitled to assert a de fense of dure ss, the court opined: To hold that [defendant] was fa ced w ith an imminent threat b ased on a rumor he hear d from som e unknown and unidentified individual would essentially require that eac h and every inmate who has alleg edly rec eived a

vag ue unsubstantiated thre at be a llo we d to arm

him se lf , thre a te nin g the sa fe ty of g ua rd s a s w e ll a s o the r p ri so ne rs ; this would be less than rea sonable. Sahakian , 453 F.3d at 910. The F irst Circuit, a lso a pply ing a narr ow definition of “imminent,” found that a def endant, who w as told by another inmate that he would “cr ack open [t he def endant’ s] head,”

was not e ntitled to prese nt a defe nse of duress wher e the def endant then ma de his attac k in the prison

re c re a tio na l y ard

a ft e r the re ha d be e n a coo lin g of f pe ri od be tw e e n the a lle g e d thre a t and the a ssa ult

. Un ite d S tat es v . B e llo , 194 F.3d 18, 21 ( 1st Cir. 1999). The case at bar is si milar to Sahakian and Be llo beca use Howe, like the inmate in Sahakian ,No. 07-5598

United States Pag e 8 was not spec ifically t h re at ened a nd, like the situation in Be llo , there was a cooling off pe riod betwee n the time when How e was ‘provoke d’ by his f ellow inmate and when How e ac tually attacke d him. Both the g ener alized nature of the alleg ed thre at and t h e am p l e co o ling of f time neg ates Ho we ’s a sse rt ion

that he wa s und e r a

n im me diate and

imm ine nt t

hr e a t of de a th o r s e ri ou s b od ily ha rm . Moreove r, as a

policy matter, it would be troublin g to allow g angrules to superc ede le g al rules, par ticularly wher e no spec ific threats have be en made . Prisons are undoubtedly dang ero us place s, but “[t] he conse quence s of such a conce ssion would only

serve to exa ce rb at e t h e alr eady violent environment at . . . fe dera l prisons or place s of conf inement.” Sahakian , 453 F.3d at 910. I n order for How e to pre sent the def ense of duress, Howe was require d to “introduce evidenc e on all el em ents of the de fense .” Cam pb e ll , 6 75 F .2 d at 82 1. B e c a us e Ho we fa ile d to establish an imminent threat of bodily harm, the district c ourt was “ n o t o b l i gat ed to allow the evidenc e to rema in for consideration by the jury .” Id. This Court therefor e af firms the district court’ s decision to prec lude evidenc e of dur ess on the g rounds that Howe did not establish an immediate, imm ine nt t

hr e a t of se ri ou s b od ily

ha rm . I V. Howe ad d i t i o n al ly

appea ls the district court’s denia l of his post-trial Motion for Acquittal or i n the Alt ernative for New Tria l. I n his appea l, Howe a rg ues that he is entitled to ac quittal or a new tria l beca

use “[t] he Dist rict C ourt committed reve rsible error, and abused its discre tion when de fe nd ant s ub mit te d s ome e vid e nc e , h ow e ve r w e a k, to s up po rt his de fe ns e ” of

dure ss. I n revie wing a denia l of a mot i o n fo r ac quittal, this Court views “the e vidence in the lightNo. 07-5598

United States Pag e 9 most favora

ble to the prosec ution.” United States v. Clay , 346 F.3d 173, 17 6 (6 th Cir. 2003) (q u o t i n g United States v. J ones , 102 F.3d 804, 807 ( 6th Cir. 1996 ))

. This Court must aff irm the district court’s de cision if “ any rational trier of fact could have found the essential e lements of the crime.” Id. (q u o t i n g Jones , 102 F.3d at 807) (empha sis in original). Howe ba ses his a

rg ument for acquittal on the district c ourt’s exclusion of evidenc e re lating to his defense of dure ss. Be cause , as discussed a bove, the district court did not err in excluding such

e vid e nc e , th e dis tr ic t c ourt a lso did no t e rr in d e nyingHo we ’s mot ion fo r a c qu itt a l or

a ne w tri a l. V. Ho we ’s fi na l argume nt f

or re ve rs a l is tha

t th e dist ri c t c ourt

e rr e d in re fu sin g to a do pt h is supplemental jury

instructions requiring specific intent to do bodily harm a s to Counts 3 and 4 of the ind ic tme nt, wh ic h c ha

rg e d H ow e wi th: (1 ) u sin g a da ng e ro us we a

po n to for cib ly

a ssa ult , r e sis t, oppose, impede, intimidate or inter fer e with Off icer Adams i n violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a), and (2) thre ateningto murder Of fice r Adams in viol ation of 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)( 1)(B ). This Court reviews the r efusa l to issue jury instructions requeste d by a par ty for a b u se of discretion. Taylor v. TECO Barge Line, Inc

. , 5 1 7 F. 3 d 3 7 2 , 3 8 7 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( ci t i n g Tompkin v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. , 362 F.3d 882, 901 (6th Cir. 2004)). “Adistrict court’s re fusal to g ive a jury instruction constitutes rever sible err or if (1) the omitted instruction is a c orre ct statement of the law, (2) the instruction is not substantially cover ed by other de livered c harg es, and ( 3) the fa ilure to g ive the instruction impair s the reque sting pa rty ’s theory

of the c ase.” Taylor , 517 F.3d at 387 (quoting Tom pk in , 362 F.3d at 901). Howe waived his c laim ba sed on the district c ourt’s re fusal to issue his reque sted instructionsNo. 07-5598

United States Pag e 10 beca use he failed to de velop his a rg ument. “I ssues adver ted to in a perf

uncto ry m an n er,

unacc ompanied by some eff ort at developed arg umentation, are deeme d waived.” United States v. Layne , 1 9 2 F. 3 d

5 5 6 , 5 6 6 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) ( qu o t i n g McPhe rson v . Kelsey , 125 F .3 d 9 89 , 9 95 -9 6 ( 6th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ))

. Ho we d ev o t eda m er e t h re e s en t en ce s t o t h i s cl ai m , s t at i n g: De fe nd ant a lso su

bmi tte d su

pp le me nta l I ns tr

uc tio ns (R .1 16 Sup ple me nta l Re qu e st for Jury I nstructions, Apx. v.1 pg . 152) that re quested languag e be a dded re quiring specific intent to do bodily harm a s t o Counts I I Iand I V. The Court’s instruc tions (R.120 Court’s J ury I nstructions, Apx. v.1 pg . 193-231) did not have suc h lang uag e. As a re sult, Appellant was pre judiced and a

new tria l is warra

nted. (Appe llant’s Br ief at 40.) Howe does not argue that the reque sted instructions are a cor rec t statement of the law , he does not claim that the reque sted instructions were not substantially cover ed by

other delivere d ch ar g es, nor doe s he explain ex actly how he wa s prejudice d by the district court’s ins tr uc tio ns . I ndeed, it is diffic ult to im ag ine exactly what “pr ejudice” resulted f rom the district court’ s ref usal to issue the reque sted instructions. Howe was ac quitted on both Count s 3 and 4, with the jury fi n d i n g h i m gu i l t y o f t h e l es s er i n cl u d edo ff

en s e o f C o u n t3 o f “ fo rc i b l y as s au l t i n g, re s i s t i n g, opposing, impeding , intimi dating or interf eringwith Office r Adams.” Ho we , 2007 WL 1248050,

a t *1

. As to Ho we ’s re qu e st t o a dd langua g e re qu ir ing“ sp e c if ic int e nt, ” thi s Co ur

t ha s a lr e a dy

he ld that a convic tion under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)( 1) (Count 3 ) d o es not require specific intent. United States v. Kimes , 246 F.3d 800, 808 (6th Cir. 2001) (“[T] he crime established in 18 U.S.C. § 111(a) is a g e ne ra l in te nt c ri me . . .” ). Vi e wi ng the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s ins tr uc tio ns , a s w e mus t, u

nd e r a n a bu se of discre tion standard, it is not evident that the jury instructions failed to “a dequate ly inform the jury of re levant conside rations and pr ovide a ba sis in law for aiding the jury to rea ch its decision.” KingNo. 07-5598

United States Pag e 11 v. Ford Motor Co. , 209 F.3d 886, 897 (6th Cir. 2000). Thus, we a ffirm the district c ourt’s denia l of Ho we ’s su

pp le me nta l in str

uc tio ns . V I. For the fore g oing r easons, we AF F IRM the de c isi on of the dis tr ic t c ourt

.