Peralta

*109 MEMORANDUM *

James Peralta appeals his conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 922 (g)(1) and 924(a)(2), asserting that the district court violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by precluding testimony in support of the affirmative defense of justification. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s order precluding presentation of a defense. United States v. Arellano-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1119, 1125 (9th Cir.2001). To establish a justification defense, the defendant must show that “(1) he was under unlawful and present threat of death or serious bodily injury; (2) he did not recklessly place himself in a situation where he would be forced to engage in criminal conduct; (3) he had no reasonable legal alternative; and (4) there was a direct causal relationship between the criminal action and the avoidance of the threatened harm.” United States v. Gomez, 92 F.3d 770, 775 (9th Cir.1996).

As an initial matter, Peralta was not under unlawfud and present threat of death or serious bodily injury when he was approached by police officers because the threat concluded once his brother retreated into the home. See United…