Ibarra-Pino

Christopher Ibarra-Pino (“Ibarra”) appeals from his conviction for importation of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960, and possession of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). He contends, inter alia, that the district court erred by preventing him from presenting evidence of duress at trial and by refusing to give a jury instruction on a duress defense. 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

I.

On September 16, 2009, Ibarra drove a vehicle into the United States at the Calexico West Port of Entry. At the Port of Entry’s primary inspection point, Ibarra told the primary inspection officer that he owned the vehicle and was entering the United States to see an Army recruiter. A computer alert on the vehicle indicated that the vehicle might contain illegal drugs and should be referred to secondary inspection. The primary inspection officer escorted Ibarra and the vehicle to the secondary inspection lot and then took Ibarra into the secondary inspection office. Officers found 69 kilograms of marijuana concealed in the vehicle’s tires and gas tank and in a manufactured compartment behind the driver’s seat.

*1002 Ibarra…

concurring in the judgment:

As the majority recognizes, “the district court did not preclude the duress defense *1008 prior to trial.” Maj. op. at 1004. The evidence it excluded — Ibarra’s post-arrest statements and his mother’s statements about what his wife said — were inadmissible hearsay. We have no occasion to discuss whether the district court could properly have precluded a duress defense. I see this as a difficult issue that we should leave to a case where it matters.

Before: ALEX KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, SANDRA S. IKUTA, Circuit Judge, and SUSAN R. BOLTON, District Judge. [*]

Opinion by Judge BOLTON; Concurrence by Chief Judge KOZINSKI.

BOLTON, District Judge:

Christopher Ibarra-Pino ("Ibarra") appeals from his conviction for importation of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960, and possession of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1). He contends, inter alia, that the district court erred by preventing him from presenting evidence of duress at trial and by refusing to give a jury instruction on a duress defense. [1] We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

On September 16, 2009, Ibarra drove a vehicle into the United States at the Calexico West Port of Entry. At the Port of Entry's primary inspection point, Ibarra told the primary inspection officer that he owned the vehicle and was entering the United States to see an Army recruiter. A computer alert on the vehicle indicated that the vehicle might contain illegal drugs and should be referred to secondary inspection. The primary inspection officer escorted Ibarra and the vehicle to the secondary inspection lot and then took Ibarra into the…