Cir.1992) (citation omitted). The evidence presented by Hernandez-Torres does not satisfy the first element of a defense of duress. Decisions by this court on what constitutes a prima facie showing have required specific and direct threats of physical harm. Compare, e.g., United States v. Otis, 127 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir.1997) (requiring duress instruction where defendant testified that the Cali cartel had kidnaped his father in Colombia and had threatened further harm to the defendant’s father unless the defendant worked for it in the United States); Con-tento-Pachon, 723 F.2d at 693 (reversing exclusion of duress evidence where a drug dealer threatened to kill the defendant and his family unless he smuggled cocaine) with United States v. Becerra, 992 F.2d 960, 962, 964 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). While Hernandez-Torres may have had good
holding there was enough evidence to find the defendant abandoned his child when he claimed to have knowledge of cpss involvement he admitted that for periods of two years and six months he did not attempt any contact with his child and from the date he canceled a home study until the petition was filed he did not attempt to contact the child or cps or provide support even when he was out of jail holding that the district court did not err in continuing the trial without defendant when the trial had commenced in defendants presence he vigorously expressed his desire to be absent he was given ample opportunity to change his mind despite the disturbance he had created he had competent counsel and he knew of his right to be present holding that the district courts refusal to instruct on duress was proper where defendant testified that he set up a cocaine deal because he feared a prospective buyer was mafiaconnected and would kill him or someone in his family if he did not act holding that plaintiff could not show that he was disabled because he conceded that he could do his job despite his impairment holding that defendant was not resident of his mothers household even though his drivers license listed his mothers address and he received mail there because he expressed a belief that his residence was in a different location than his mothers home he rented and occupied his own residence and he testified that he was only living with his mother after expiration of his lease until he could find another place to live