Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Juan Rodriguez-Vasquez

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-50681
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JUAN RODRIGUEZ-VASQUEZ
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 4:06-CR-259-ALL
Before KING, DAVIS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan Rodriguez-Vasquez appeals his conviction and 84-month sentence for
aiding and abetting the importation of cocaine and aiding and abetting the
possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Rodriguez-Vasquez argues that
our pattern jury instruction on the defense of duress places a constitutionally
impermissible burden on the defendant, and he asserts that the instruction
violates principles of equal protection because other circuits require a defendant
raising a defense of duress to make a less onerous showing. He contends that
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
April 2, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 07-50681
2
his sentence is excessive because the district court erroneously determined that
he was not entitled to a reduction in offense level for acceptance of responsibility.
Rodriguez-Vasquez’s challenge to the burden of proof required to establish
the defense of duress is foreclosed by United States v. Dixon, 126 S. Ct. 2437,
2442-48 (2006). His contention that our pattern instruction on duress violates
principles of equal protection fails because he does not suggest that the
challenged instruction has a discriminatory purpose. See United States v.
Chavez, 281 F.3d 479, 486-87 (5th Cir. 2002). We affirm the sentencing court’s
determination that Rodriguez-Vasquez was not entitled to a reduction in offense
level for acceptance of responsibility. United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420, 458
(5th Cir. 2002).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --