UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4496
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ELVIN ARTURO VALLADARES-BONILLA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (2:10-cr-00023-JPB-JSK-1)
Submitted: October 28, 2011 Decided: November 3, 2011
Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kristen Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Martinsburg,
West Virginia; L. Richard Walker, Senior Litigator, FEDERAL
PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for
Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney,
Stephen D. Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, Elkins,
West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Elvin Arturo Valladares-Bonilla, a native and citizen
of Honduras, was convicted of one count of illegal reentry of a
deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2) (2006). He
was sentenced to a term of time served and one year of
supervised release.
Prior to trial, Valladares-Bonilla sought to advance a
defense of justification, asserting that he returned illegally
to the United States in order to escape enemies in Honduras who
sought to kill him for reasons that were not justified. In
response to Valladares-Bonilla’s pretrial proffer, the
Government filed a motion in limine to prohibit evidence at
trial regarding the justification defense. Valladares-Bonilla’s
sole contention on appeal is that the district court erred in
granting the Government’s motion in limine to prohibit him from
advancing a defense of justification. We have thoroughly
reviewed the record and conclude that the district court
properly granted the motion in limine because Valladares-Bonilla
failed to meet the four-prong test set forth in United States v.
Crittendon, 883 F.2d 326, 330 (4th Cir. 1989), for establishing
entitlement to a justification defense. Specifically, we agree
with the district court’s finding that Valladares-Bonilla, who
paid a “coyote” to take him through Mexico illegally to the
United States, did not demonstrate that he had no legal
2
alternative to both the criminal act and the avoidance of the
threatened harm. Id.
We accordingly affirm the district court’s judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3