United States of America v. ANTONIO GONZALEZ, Jr.

17-50016Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFeb 16, 2018

Full text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO GONZALEZ, Jr.,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-50016
D.C. No. 3:16-cr-01835-CAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Antonio Gonzalez, Jr., appeals his bench-trial conviction for importation of
heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Gonzalez contends that the district court erred in concluding that he failed to
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 16 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-50016
prove the elements of a duress defense. We review mixed questions of law and
fact de novo. See United States v. Acosta-Sierra, 690 F.3d 1111, 1117 (9th Cir.
2012).
The district court did not err in concluding that Gonzalez had failed to
establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he acted under duress. See
United States v. Solorzano-Rivera, 368 F.3d 1073, 1081 (9th Cir. 2004). The court
was entitled to question Gonzalez’s credibility. See United States v. Archdale, 229
F.3d 861, 867 (9th Cir. 2000). Moreover, the record supports the court’s
conclusion that the threat alleged by Gonzalez was insufficient to support his
duress defense. See 9th Cir. Crim. Jury Instr. 6.5 (2010) (to establish duress,
defendant must prove that threat was “present, immediate, or impending”); United
States v. Chi Tong Kuok, 671 F.3d 931, 948 (9th Cir. 2012) (a threat is
“immediate” only if it is specific; “vague and undetailed threats will not suffice”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.