United States v. Fredy Figueroa-Montes
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Fredy Figueroa-Montes appeals his convictions for conspiracy to manufacture marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), (b)(1)(C), 846, and depredation of government property, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 , 1361, in connection with a marijuana growing operation in a national forest. He challenges the jury instructions on his duress defense, which included Instruction 24, a general instruction on duress, and Instructions 25-27, each defining an element of duress. Figueroa-Montes concedes that the general instruction was “correct,” but argues that the district court abused its discretion in giving the additional instructions and that, taken as a whole, the duress instructions were therefore misleading. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm.
1. Taken as a whole, the duress instructions were not misleading and properly instructed the jury that a duress defense can be based on an implied threat. See United States v. Chao Fan Xu, 706 F.3d 965, 985 (9th Cir.2013); United States v. Navarro, 608 F.3d 529, 533 (9th Cir.2010). Nothing in the definitional instructions undercut the general instruction’s explicit statement that “the threat of harm may be express or implied.”