F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT May 1 5, 2006 T HOMA S K. KA HN [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HEEL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

________________________ N o. 05- 1117 2

_____________________ ___ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 20 66 8 C R-DLG UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-A ppellee, ve rs us HU GO HE RNA N G ON ZA LE Z A LV EA R, D ef en da nt- A ppe lla nt.

________________________ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rn D istri ct

of F lorida

_________________________ (M ay 1 5, 200 6) Be fo re BL A CK , BA RKE T T a nd C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

In thi s appe al , w e co nsi de r the thr es hol d e vid en tiaryr eq uir emen ts tha t m ust be m et be fo re ac ri mina l de fe nda nt c an pr es en t e vid en ce sup portin g th e af fi rm at ive de fe nse of

dur es s. W e al so c onsi de r w he the r ev ide nc e of c oe rc ion that migh t be pr oba tiv e of

ade fe nda nt’ s men s r ea

m aynon ethe le ss b e ex cl ude d if the de fe nda nt can no t re ly on adu res s d efen se as am at te r of law. I. B ack ground Hugo Hernan Gonzalez Alvear wa s arre sted at the Miami International Airport during a scheduled lay over for a flight with an ultim ate destination o f N ew Y ork. A t the ti m e, he ha d in his pos se ssi on a sui tc as e co nta ini ng h er oin w orth ap pr oxi m at el y $75 , 000. A lve ar w as c harg edw ith im

porta tio n of

he ro in, in vio la tio n of

21 U . S. C. § 95 2( a) , a nd p oss es sio n of he ro in w ith the int en t t o d i s tri b u t e, i n v i o l at i o n o f 2 1 U.S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )( 1 ). Du ri n g t h e c o u rs e o f A l v ea r’s tr ia l, the G ove rn m en t m ad e an or al m oti on i n li mine to pr ev en t A lve ar f ro m te sti fy ing to fa ct s th at

migh t su pport a

de fe nse of

dur es s. ( R. 4- 52 a t 6. ) O uts ide of the j ur y ’ s pr es en ce , the c ourt he ar d e xte nsi ve arg um en t on the m oti on a nd allowed an evidentiaryproffer by the defense, includin g testim ony by Alvear him se lf . T he c ourt de te rm ine d th at A lve ar ha d no t e stabli she d so m e of the el emen ts o f the de fe nse a nd the re fo re gr an te d th e G ove rn m en t’ s m oti on. ( R. 4- 52 at 30-33.) L ater, during Alvear’ s testim ony in the presence of the j ury , the c ourt3

sustain ed the Government’ s objections to the admissio n of Alvear ’ s testim ony that he w as f or ce d to take the drugs to the U nit edS ta te s a nd tha t he be lie ve d hi s f am ily would be killed if he did n ot transport the drug s. ( R.4- 52 at 37-38 , 47. ) T he j ury fo und A lve ar

gui ltyof both c ri m es . H e ap pe al s hi s c onvi ct ion s. II. Issues on A ppeal and Cont entions of t he P arties Alvear raises tw o issu es on appeal. F irst, he c ontend s that the dist rict court er re d i n g ra n t i n g t h e G o v er n m en t ’s m o t i o n i n l i mi n e t o ex cl u d e A l v ea r’s testim onial evidence sup porting the aff irm ative defense of duress. Sec ond, Alvear contends that, e ven if he w as properly prevented from pursuin g a duress defense, t h e c o u r te rr e d i n e x c l u d i n g t h e d u r e s s - r e l a t e d t e s t i mo n y b e c a u s e t h e s a me ev ide nc e w as pr oba tiv e of his la ck of int en t t o c ommit the c ri m es c harg ed . T he G ove rn m en t a sse rt s th at , be cause A lve ar ’ s e vid en tiarypr of fe r fa ile d to dem onstrate that he could prov e the elements of the duress defense, the district co urt c orre ct lygr an te d th e G ove rn m en t’ s m oti on i n li mine . T he G ove rn m en t a lso argues that, e ven if the sam e evidence w ere offer ed to negate m ens rea ( rather than to sup port a duress defense), the district court did no t err when it prevented A lvear from testify ing th at he w as force d to transpo rt the drugs because the charged crimes are ge ne ra l i nte nt c ri m es a nd the pr of fe re d e vid en ce w oul d do nothin g to4

n eg at e g en er al i n t en t . F i n al l y, th e G o v er n m en tco n t en d s t h att h e d i s tri ctco u rt ’s ev ide nti ary ruli ngs w er e pr ope r ap pli ca tio ns o f Fe de ra l R ule of E vid en ce 403 . III. St andards of R eview W e re vie w de nov o th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n th at ade fe nda nt i s no t en tit le d to aj ur yins truc tio n on dur es s a nd, the re fo re , c an not pr es en t e vid en ce of du res s. See U

nited Sta tes v. Bailey , 44 4 U.S. 3 94 , 10 0 S . Ct. 6 24 (19 80 ). W e re vie w the e vid en tiaryruli ngs of the dis tr ic t c ourt f

or abuse of d i s cr et i o n an d wi l l re v er s e o n l y i f t h e r es u l t i n g erro r a ff ec t ed a d ef

en d an t ’s su bs ta nt ia l ri gh ts . See U

nited Sta tes v. Brown , 415 F. 3d 12 57, 1264-65 (11th Cir. 2005 ); United States v. T inoco , 30 4 F .3d 10 88 , 11 19 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). IV . D isc us sio n A . T he D ur es s D ef

en se W e begin by discussi ng the dis trict court’ s ruling th at prohibited Alvear fro m em pl oyin g adu res s d efen se . To be ab le to pu rs ue a de fen se of d ur es s, a de fe nda nt m

ust ( if a ske d) pr of

fe r ev ide nc e suf

fi ci en t t o pr ove e ac h of

the e le m en ts of th atde fen se . Se e Bai le y, 444 U . S. a t 41 5, 100 S . Ct . a t 63 7; United States v. M ont gom er y , 772 F . 2d 7 33, 736 ( 11th C ir . 198 5) . T he e le m en ts o f dur es s are : ( 1) the de fe nda nt f

ac eda n im

m ed ia te thr ea t of

immine nt h arm

to him se lf

or oth er s, ( 2) the de fe nda nt h adaw el l- fo unde d be lie f tha t the thr ea t w oul d be c ar ri edout , a nd5

(3 ) th e d efen da ntha d n o re as on ab le op po rtu ni ty to es cap e o r in fo rm po li ce. U nit ed Sta te s v . A lza te , 47 F. 3d 11 03, 1104 (11t h Cir. 1995 ). In response to the Governm ent’ s m otion in limine, the district court allowe d A lve ar ’ s c ouns el to m ak e a pr of fe r of the e vid en ce sup portin g th e dur es s de fe nse an d to pla ce his c lie nt o n th e w itn es s st an d, out sid e the pr es en ce of the j ur y , to te st ify to t he pro ffer ed ev id en ce. (R.4 -5 2 a t 1 9- 30 .) Af ter this testim ony , w hich the Government did no t have the oppo rtunity to cross-examine, the j udge ruled tha t the e vid en ce w as ins uf fi ci en t t o e stabli sh the f

ir st a nd thir d e le m en ts o f the du res s d efen se . (R.4- 52 at 3 0- 31 .) A s part of the pr of fe r, A lve ar

te sti fi edthat he ha d to take the he ro in t o th e Uni te d S ta te s b ecau se he be li ev ed th at , if h e d id no t, h is famil y wou ld be ha rm ed . (R. 4-52 at 29.) H owever , he did no t testify that any one had specifically threatened to h arm him or his f am ilyif he didnot

c om ple te the j ob; nor

didhe te sti fythat a ny spe ci fi c pe rs on w as sta ndi ng b y to ex ec ute on the uns poke n th re at if he f ai le d to com ply with the traf

fickers’ wishes. A lvear did testify that he feared that he w as be ing w at ch eda nd tha t this f ear re str ai ne d hi m

f ro m spe ak ing to ai rl ine pe rs onne l ab out his situa tio n be cause he be lie ve d th at , if he didso, the pe opl e w at ch ing him w oul d r ep ort hi s a ct ivi tyto the tr af fi ck er s in E cu ad or

a nd h is f am ilyw oul d th en be harmed . ( R. 4- 52 a t 27 . ) S uc h ge ne ra liz edappr eh en sio n of f utu re harm

is6

in su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh th e fi rs t el em en t o f th e d ur es s d efen se . United States v. W att le ton , 296 F . 3d 1 184, 119 6 n. 20 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) ; United States v. Sixty A cres in Etow ah Count

y , 93 0 F .2d 85 7, 8 60 -6 1 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 1) . Fu rthe rm or e, e ve n if

A lve ar ’ s f

ear of be ing w at ch edc oul d e stabli sh the imm ed ia te thr eat r eq uir emen t, his e vid en ce didnot e stabli sh the thi rde le m en t of the defense–that he had no reasonable opp ortunity to noti fy authorities. A lvear w a s n o ti n t h e c u s t o d y o f a n y d ru g tr a f

f i c k e r d u r i n g h i s f

l i g h to r a tt h e M i a mi ai rp ort. T hus, he c oul d ha ve a le rt edthe c ust om s of fi ci al s th at

he w as c ar

ry ing ill ic it drugs. A lve ar

te sti fi edthat he didnot

do s o be cause he didnot kno w w ho t o trust . ( R. 4- 52 a t 28 . ) A de fe nda nt s ee kin g to a sse rt ade fe nse of

dur es s m ust ha ve take n any r e a s o n ab l e o p p o r t u n i t y t h a th e h a d d u r i n g t h e c o mmi s s i o n o f t h e c r i me to in fo rm po li ce o r ot he r au th or it ie s. See U nited Sta tes v. Lee , 694 F . 2d 6 49, 654 (1 1th Ci r. 198 3) . W e ag re e w ith the G ove rn m en t tha t a de fe nda nt c an not

e sc ap e thi s r eq uir emen t byc la iming age ne ra l di strust of tho se a uth or iti es . T hus, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr

in fi ndi ng tha t A lve ar

c oul d no t, a s am atte r of

la w , r el y on a de fe nse of

dur es s or in pr ec lud ing A lve ar

f ro m te sti fy ing a s to f

ac ts supp orting a duress defense.Th e Go ve rn me nt a rg ue s th at th is c ou rt ’s patte rnins truc tio ns , a s u se d in thi s ca se , in c or re c tly 1 ins e rt a sp e c if ic int e nt e le me nt i nto theof fe ns e s d e fi ne d in21 U. S.C. §§ 84 1( a ) and 95 2( a ). Whil e the s tatutory lang uag e of those sections s ay s the acts must be done “knowing ly and intentionally ,” the pattern instructions state that the def endant must b e fo u n d t o have c ommitt ed the of fense s “knowing ly

and willfully .” E l ev en th C i rcu i t P a t t er n Ju r y In s t r u ct i o n s (C r i mi n a lC a s es ) (2003 ed.) , O f f e n s e In s tru c t i o n s 8 5 a n d9 0 . T h e E l e v e n th C i r c u i ti s th e o n l y c i r c u i t t o h a v e i n c l u d e d“ w i l l f u l l y” in i ts p atte rnins truc tio ns fo r the se of fe ns e s. In this case, the district c ourt paire d the offe nse-spe cif i c p at t ern instruc tions with another pattern instruc tion, defining “willfully ” as me aning “that the act wa s committed voluntarily and purposely , with the specific intent to do something the law for bids; that is wit h bad purposeeither to disobey

or disreg ard thelaw.” Id. , Ba sic Instruction 9.1. Thus, the Government arg ues t hat Alvear was the beneficiary of a jury instruction imposi ng ontheGo ve rn me nt the bu rden of pr ov ing a

hig he r l e ve l of

me ns re a than is a c tually

re qu ir e d to p r o v e th e c rim e s a n dth at e xc lu s io n o f e v id e n c e n e g ati n g s p e c if

ic in te n t w a s th e r e f

o r e h arml e s s . We ne e d n ot a ddre ss this arg ume nt b e c ause, even a ssu min g that th e ins truc tio ns g ive n a rec or re c t, Alvear ’s convictions stand. 7 B. T he E vid en tiaryRu lin gs A lve ar ’ s se co nd arg um en t on appe al is tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d ha ve al low edhim

to of fe r the sa m e ev ide nc e tha t he ha d pl an ne d to of fe r in s uppo rt

of his dur es s de fe nse , but

li mite d th e j ur y ’ s us e of

the te sti m onyto ne ga tio n of the m ens rea r equired for the crim e. T he j ury wa s instructed that th e mens rea re qui re d to c ommit the se of fe nse s w as spe ci fi c int en t. I n ruli ng o n th e 1 G ove rn m en t’ s m oti on i n li mine , the j udge state d th at A lve ar c oul d no t t es tif

y a s to fa ct s of fe re d to e stabli sh d ur es s or c oe rc ion but

that the sa m e ev ide nc e “ m aybe ap pr opr ia te ” if

it w er e of fe re d “ fo r some oth er

r ea son. ” ( R. 4- 52 a t 32 . ) D es pit e thi s st at emen t bythe c ourt, w he n th e G ove rn m en t ob j ec te d to the intro duc tio n of the testim ony , A lvear’ s counsel never sugg ested that he wa s offering the excluded8

ev ide nc e fo r an y pur

pose oth er

tha n “ sa y ing w ha t happe ne d in thi s c as e, how he ca m e in c ont ac t w ith the drugs[ . ] ” ( R. 4- 52 a t 37 . ) A lve ar ’ s c ouns el ne ve r tol d th e dis tr ic t c ourt tha t he w as se ek ing to ad mit the e vid en ce to ne ga te A lve ar ’ s sp ec if ic in te nt . This court generallydoes not con sider on appeal argum ents not raised be fo re t he di st ric t co ur t. FDIC v . V erex A ssur. Inc. , 3 F .3d 391, 395 (11th Cir. 1993 ); Smith v. Horner , 839 F . 2d 1 530, 153 4 ( 11th C ir . 198 8) . W e ap plythat rule in th is cas e an d t he refo re h ol d t ha t t he is su e was no t p res erv ed forou r rev ie w. A ssu ming , arg ue ndo, how ev er , that A lve ar pr es er ve d th is arg um en t f or appeal, it is meritless. Even if Alvear ’ s counsel had id entified the testim ony as ev ide nc e of

A lve ar ’ s la ck

of spe ci fi c int en t, the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n to disallow certain testim ony would not have been an abuse of discretion. Feder al Ru le of E vid en ce 403 state s: “ A lth ough r el ev an t, e vid en ce m aybe e xc lud edif it s probative value is su bstantially outweighed by the danger of unfair pre j udice, co nf usi on o f the iss ue s, or

misl ea din g th e j ur y , or

by c onsi de ratio ns o f undu e de la y , w as te of

ti m e, or ne ed le ss p re se nta tio n of

c um ula tiv e ev ide nc e. ” T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s ruli ngs didnot pr ev en t A lve ar

f ro m pr es en tin g e vid en ce to ne ga te his int en t t o c ommit a crime. N ot o nlyw as he pe rm itt edto pr ovi de te sti m ony probative of his m ens rea, but he actually did provi de that testim ony . Alvear9

te sti fi edthat he ha d no t w an te d to tr an sport the drugs (R . 4- 52 a t 40 ), that he did not want to break the law (R. 4-52 at 40), that he had intention ally acted in a m anner that he believed would raise suspicion b y custom s officials (R .4-52 at 41), that it was never his int ention to deliver the drugs to a traff icker in the U nited S t a t e s ( R . 4

- 5 2 a t4 1 ) , a n d t h a th e a c t u a l l y “d e l i v e r e d [ h i m]s e l f ” t o c u s t o ms au tho ri tie s ( R. 4- 52 a t 46 ). T he dis tr ic t c ourt e xc lud edonl y te sti m onyr eg ar din g Alvear ’ s perception of force – nam ely , A lvear’ s belief (identified in the earlier pr of fe r in s uppo rt

of A lve ar ’ s du re ss arg um en t) that he w as und er va gue thr ea t of fu tu re h arm

to hi s fa mil y . ( Se e e. g. , R. 4- 52 a t 47 ( ex cl udi ng A lve ar ’ s te sti m ony tha t he didnot

r ev ea l the drugs to s om eo ne in Mi am i be cause to do s o w oul d be

“ killin g [his] fam

ily right awa y .” )) T hus, w e hol d th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t abuse it s di sc re tio n in the se ev ide nti ary ruli ngs. T he c ourt r ea sonablye xc lud edonl y A lve ar ’ s te sti m ony re gard ing thr ea ts and c oe rc ion , e vid en ce that migh t ha ve c onf use d th e iss ue s a nd misl edthe j ur y int o be lie vin g th at A lve ar ’ s a ct ion s c oul d be e xc use d be cause of dur es s. T he te sti m onyA lve ar sou ght to giv e w oul d ha ve pr ovi de d th e j ur or s w ith inf or m at ion that A lve ar ’ s a ct s w er e co er ce d de spi te the f ac t tha t he c oul d no t, a s a m atter of la w, relyon the duress defense.10 V . C on cl us ion Be c a u s e A l v e ar

w a s n o te n t i t l e d t o ad u r e s s d e f e n s e a n d h i s t e s t i m o ny re gard ing thr ea ts and c oe rc ion w as pr ope rl y e xc lud ed , w e af fi rm his c onvi ct ion s. AFFIR MED.