United States v. Florentino-Rosario, 19 F.4th 530

Florentino-Rosario is a Dominican national who was first apprehended at a Puerto Rico airport in Sept. 2019, admitted prior illegal sea entry, and was removed and barred from reentry for five years.
In Oct. 2019 he was stopped about 19 nautical miles off Puerto Rico on a tarp-covered boat from the Dominican Republic carrying 14 passengers; he admitted paying $2,000 for passage, having been denied a visa, and having no right to be in the U.S.
He was charged with attempted illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Pretrial he sought three jury instructions: (1) that attempted reentry is a specific-intent crime; (2) an MPC-style purpose vs. knowledge instruction; and (3) duress/necessity instructions; he also sought to admit an asylum petition to support duress.
The district court excluded the asylum petition, precluded presentation of a duress defense for failure to make a threshold showing, and refused Florentino-Rosario’s proposed instructions, but gave a supplemental instruction distinguishing "knowingly" and "intentionally."
The defense presented no evidence or oral arguments at trial; the jury convicted and the court sentenced him to five years’ probation. He appealed, arguing instructional error and erroneous exclusion of his asylum petition/duress defense.

Issue	Florentino-Rosario's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether § 1326 attempted reentry requires a specific intent to violate the law	Attempt was a specific-intent crime; he lacked purpose to violate law because he acted under fear (duress)	§ 1326 requires only intent to enter (general intent); no need to know illegality	Court: No reversible error; attempted reentry is general intent and the jury was adequately instructed (court even told jurors to find intent)
Whether the court should have instructed using MPC hierarchy (purpose vs. knowledge)	MPC-style distinction is material to show lack of requisite mental state	MPC hierarchy is not the correct framework for § 1326 and was unnecessary given instructions	Court: Instruction incorrect as a matter of law and substantially incorporated by the court’s own knowing/intentionally instruction; denial affirmed
Whether duress/necessity should have been presented and asylum petition admitted	Duress defense supported by asylum petition showing threats/attack and inability to remain safely in Dominican Republic	Defendant failed to make threshold showing: threats were not sufficiently immediate and had reasonable alternatives; asylum petition irrelevant	Court: District court did not abuse discretion; excluded duress defense and asylum petition because proffer insufficient as a matter of law

United States v. De León, 270 F.3d 90 (1st Cir. 2001) (attempted reentry requires intent to enter but not knowledge that entry is criminal)
United States v. Lebreault-Feliz, 807 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2015) (duress requires immediate threat, reasonable belief, and no reasonable escape)
DeCaro v. Hasbro, Inc., 580 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2009) (split standard for review of preserved jury-instruction objections)
White v. New Hampshire Dep't of Corr., 221 F.3d 254 (1st Cir. 2000) (three-prong test for refused jury instructions)
United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394 (1980) (discussion of MPC mental-state distinctions)
United States v. Soto, 106 F.3d 1040 (1st Cir. 1997) (rejecting instruction that good-faith belief negates reentry)
United States v. Cabral, 252 F.3d 520 (1st Cir. 2001) (upholding conviction where evidence supported intent to reenter)
United States v. Rodriguez, 416 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2005) (treating attempted reentry as general intent)
United States v. Morales-Palacios, 369 F.3d 442 (5th Cir. 2004) (same)
United States v. Peralt-Reyes, 131 F.3d 956 (11th Cir. 1997) (same)
United States v. Bonilla-Siciliano, 643 F.3d 589 (8th Cir. 2011) (duress requires exhausting other legal alternatives)
United States v. DeStefano, 59 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1995) (instruction-refusal review principles)