Blatt

MEMORANDUM *

Defendant Leonard Blatt was convicted of five offenses related to his production, possession, and sale of false identification documents in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (a) and 42 U.S.C. § 408 (a)(7)(B).

A. Necessity-Defense Instruction

Defendant’s necessity-defense argument appears to rely on two alternative rationales. First, Defendant asserts that his crimes constituted a direct challenge to licensing and identification laws that he perceived to be “evil.” Second, Defendant argues that he engaged in criminal activity only as a means of furthering his goal of regaining custody of his son. Neither of these rationales is sufficient to establish a necessity defense.

We review de novo the district court’s refusal to give a jury instruction on the necessity defense. United States v. Arellano-Rivera, 244 F.Bd 1119, 1125 (9th Cir.2001). Defendant may invoke this defense only if he can colorably show: “ ‘(1) that he was faced with a choice of evils and chose the lesser evil; (2) that he acted to prevent imminent harm; (3) that he reasonably anticipated a causal relation between his conduct and the harm to be avoided; and (4) that there were no other legal alternatives…