Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Yessinia Valentin

* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 06-41787
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
YESSINIA VALENTIN
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:06-CR-710-2
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
A jury found Yessinia Valentin guilty of one count of conspiracy to possess
more than five kilograms of cocaine with intent to distribute and one count of
possession of more than five kilograms of cocaine with intent to distribute, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846. She appeals her conviction, arguing that the
district court abused its discretion in denying her requested jury instruction on
the offense of duress and in precluding her counsel from arguing duress to the
jury. Finding no error, we affirm.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
March 19, 2008
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-41787
2
This court reviews a district court’s refusal to give a requested jury
instruction for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Clements, 73 F.3d 1330,
1338 (5th Cir. 1996). A defendant who seeks an instruction on an affirmative
defense such as duress must present sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to
find in the defendant’s favor. See United States v. Stone, 960 F.2d 426, 432 (5th
Cir. 1992).
The district court committed no abuse of discretion. The court reasonably
concluded that, given the evidence, Valentin did not make a sufficient showing
that she was under a present, imminent, and impending threat of such a nature
as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily injury, that
she had not recklessly or negligently placed herself in a situation in which it was
probable that she would be forced to choose criminal conduct, and that she had
no reasonable legal alternative to violating the law. See United States v. Posada-
Rios, 158 F.3d 832, 8753 (5th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, it was not an abuse of
discretion for the court to deny the instruction or to refuse to allow counsel to
present the defense to the jury.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --