Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cristobal HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-22
Citations: 235 F. App'x 654
Docket Number: No. 06-50141
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cristobal HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 654–654

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cristobal HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50141.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 13, 2007 .
Filed Aug. 22, 2007.
Carol C. Lam, AUSA, Lawrence E. Spong, Esq., USSD — Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Brian P. Funk, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Cristobal Hernandez-Hernandez appeals from his jury-trial conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Hernandez-Hernandez contends that it was error for the district court to use jury instructions that placed the burden of proof on him to prove his duress defense. We disagree. See Dixon v. United States, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2437, 2447, 165 L.Ed.2d 299 (2006); United States v. Leal-Cruz, 431 F.3d 667, 673 (9th Cir.2005).
We also conclude that the Government's analogies during closing argument did not result in plain error. See United States v. Sine, 493 F.3d 1021, 1037-40 (9th Cir.2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.