to participate in the criminal activity of which he was convicted and that the person who threatened him would occasionally call him to indicate that he was being watched, but offered no further evidence of additional threats of imminent violence. We note that the charged conspiracy spanned more than a year, during which time Opide was presented with manifold opportunities to either flee or seek the assistance of the police. Similarly, testimony regarding Opide’s aggravated identity theft revealed that he was presented with numerous opportunities to escape harm. Consequently, the district court committed no error in concluding that Opide failed to offer sufficient evidence to show that he lacked a reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm. See Gonzalez, 407 F.3d at 122 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Alicea, 837 F.2d 103, 105-07
holding that the subjective belief that going to the police would have been futile is insufficient to demonstrate the lack of a reasonable alternative to breaking the law holding that the test for good faith is the actual belief of the party and not the reasonableness of that belief holding that employees subjective belief that age discrimination occurred is insufficient to create a jury issue holding that a party must at least have a subjective belief that litigation was a real possibility and that belief must have been objectively reasonable holding in the context of a plea that the strickland prejudice prong requires a defendant to demonstrate a reasonable probability that but for counsels errors he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial