court to give the instruction may amount to plain error “only in egregious instances.” Delgado, 672 F.3d at 341-42 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Nwankwo argues that his trial testimony raised a defense of necessity or duress. “As a general proposition a defendant is entitled to an instruction as to any recognized defense for which there exists evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in his favor.” Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63, 108 S.Ct. 883, 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988); accord United States v. Branch, 91 F.3d 699, 711-12 (5th Cir.1996). Nwankwo’s argument is unavailing, as his testimony did not present sufficient evidence satisfying the elements of a necessity or duress defense. See United States v. Posadar-Rios, 158 F.3d 832, 873-75 (5th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Gant, 691 F.2d 1159, 1162-63
holding section 107a17bs plain language does not require that the actor actually intend death or serious bodily injury an object is a deadly weapon if the actor intends a use of the object in which it would be capable of causing death or serious bodily injury recognizing that when a defendants negligence causes bodily injury the plaintiff can recover damages for past present and future medical expenses bodily injury and emotional distress holding that it was a double jeopardy violation to convict and sentence for both dui with serious bodily injury and driving without a valid license with serious bodily injury based on an injury to a single victim recognizing that a justification defense requires a present imminent and impending threat which induced a wellgrounded fear of death or serious bodily injury holding that specific intent is not element of assault resulting in serious bodily injury