United States of America v. Paul Gonzalez, a.k.a. Khamla Siharaj

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PAUL GONZALEZ, a.k.a. Khamla
Siharaj,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-50421
D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00362-ODW-36
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 27, 2013 **
Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Paul Gonzalez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the
district court’s denial of his request for a continuance prior to sentencing. We
review the district court’s denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion. United
FILED
AUG 04 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

States v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1352, 1358 (9th Cir. 1985). We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Gonzalez contends that the district court erred when it denied a second
continuance. The district court did not abuse its discretion because the denial of
the continuance did not prejudice Gonzalez. See United States v. Wilkes, 662 F.3d
524, 543 (9th Cir. 2011); see also United States v. Zamora-Hernandez, 222 F.3d
1046, 1049-50 (9th Cir. 2000) (recognizing that there is not prejudice when,
despite the denial of a continuance, the defendant is able to obtain the evidence he
seeks in a sufficiently timely manner); United States v. Shirley, 884 F.2d 1130,
1135 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that appellant does not show prejudice merely by
asserting that additional time was likely to lead to important information); United
States v. Long, 706 F.2d 1044, 1053 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that there was no
prejudice where appellant failed to identify any additional evidence he would have
been able to present had district court granted motion for continuance).
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --