United States of America v. Rene Luna-Maradiaga, aka Rene Antonio Luna-Maradiaga

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RENE LUNA-MARADIAGA, aka Rene
Antonio Luna-Maradiaga,
Defendant - Appellant.
Nos. 09-10452
09-10453
D.C. Nos. 4:08-cr-01066-DCB
4:08-cr-50090-DCB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2011**
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Rene Luna-Maradiaga appeals from the 92-
month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry
after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and from the 21-month sentence
FILED
FEB 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-10452 & 09-10453 2
imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Luna-Maradiaga’s sole argument on appeal is that the district court abused
its discretion by denying his motion for a continuance of the sentencing and
disposition hearing. The district court did not abuse its discretion, as it granted
numerous other continuance requests and Luna-Maradiaga fails to demonstrate any
prejudice arising from the denial. See Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589 (1964);
United States v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1352, 1358 (9th Cir. 1985), amended by 764 F.2d
675 (9th Cir. 1985); see also United States v. Wills, 88 F.3d 704, 711 (9th Cir.
1996).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --