Jose Portillo-Meza appeals his conviction for illegally reentering the United States after removal. He urges that the district court erred in not allowing him to present a necessity or duress defense. He has not shown that he satisfied the requirements for such a defense. See United States v. Posada-Rios, 158 F.3d 832, 873 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Gant, 691 F.2d 1159, 1162-65 (5th Cir. 1982).

Additionally, Portillo-Meza theorizes that excluding such a defense can result in an inconsistency between a criminal case and an immigration case. He has shown no error.

AFFIRMED.