a reasonable opportunity to escape harm other than by engaging in the illegal activity.” United States v. Gonzalez, 407 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir.2005). As to the last of these elements, we have held that “[wjhere there is reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm, the defendant must take reasonable steps to avail himself of that opportunity, whether by flight or by seeking the intervention of the appropriate authorities.” United States v. Bakhtiari, 913 F.2d 1053, 1058 (2d Cir.1990) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court properly concluded that Opide had failed to present any evidence that he had no reasonable opportunity to escape from the alleged threat made against him. At trial, Opide testified that he was once threatened with violence should he 2d Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Mitchell, 725 F.2d 832, 837
recognizing that the government agreed not to take a position holding that schools failure to take steps to prevent students attempted suicide was not even close to violating this outrageousness standard holding that not having been shown to have knowledge of any particular danger of fire the defendant was not obliged to take precautions to guard against it holding statute requiring parties in tax suit to take notice of subsequent pleadings was not unconstitutional when city failed to take such notice holding that defendants failure to take any steps during a twentyminute window prior to boarding a plane and during the ninehour flight thereafter did not meet the requirement that they take reasonable attempts to extricate themselves from danger