Torres

MEMORANDUM *

Danita Hope Torres appeals from her conviction and sentence for various offenses associated with an illegal gambling *808 operation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. The parties are familiar with the facts, and we will not recite them here.

We conclude that the court properly instructed the jury. 1 Regarding Count 1, this court has “repeatedly held that language that describes elements beyond what is required under statute is surplus-age and need not be proved at trial.” 2 The charge of knowledge and willfulness in Count 1 was just such surplusage; 18 U.S.C. § 1955 describes a general intent crime. 3 The jury may infer general intent “from the commission of the act” charged. 4 Accordingly, the district court correctly instructed the jury when it declined to include the requirement of knowledge or willfulness in the instructions regarding Count 1.

The court had no obligation to instruct the jury regarding Torres’ claimed defense of duress, or involuntariness, as to Count 1 and Count 3 because it concluded that she presented evidence regarding her defense only as to some of the money laundering counts. Torres does not challenge this…