his solidarity with the other protestors. However, at his initial appearance before the magistrate judge, Puckett stated that he had been “captured while performing a duty,” and that his duty was to “inter-ven[e] against the slaughter of our unborn citizens,” and during his arraignment, he said that he was “defending the unborns.” Gov’t Add. 7, 22. While Puckett argues that these statements merely reflect his “general sympathy for the cause of the protesters that were out in front of the Planned Parenthood clinic,” Puckett Br. 13, rather than a specific intent to block anyone’s access to the facility, the district court was entitled to infer from these statements that Puckett had acted with the requisite motive. See United States v. Weslin, 156 F.3d 292, 298 (2d Cir.1998) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Turning to Dugan’s appeal, courts may impose
holding that presentation of an untimely petition to the states highest court satisfied the exhaustion requirement holding that protestors who sought to save the lives of unborn children satisfied the face acts intent requirement holding that challenge to oneyear residency requirement for divorce action was not moot even though plaintiff had since satisfied requirement holding acts notice requirement applicable to battery claim holding that issuance of an order to show cause satisfied this requirement