Case ID: f-appx_4/html/0195-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl Douglas CONSOLVO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4530.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 8, 2001.
    Decided Feb. 16, 2001.
    
      Joseph B. Gilbert, McNeil & Gilbert, Jacksonville, NC, for appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Michael Gordon James, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.
    Before WILKINS, DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Carl Douglas Consolvo appeals from his separate convictions by juries and sentence on charges of attempting escape and escaping from the custody of the United States Marshals Service, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 751(a) (West Supp.2000), and assaulting a Deputy United States Marshal while engaged in the performance of his duties, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 111 (West Supp.2000). On appeal, Consolvo claims that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motions for continuance. Specifically, Consolvo contends that, for his in-court appearance on May 2, 2000, he was “bloody” and disheveled from his recent altercation with the United States Marshal and that the blood was visible to the jury. He further asserts that, for his in-court appearance on May 3, 2000, he had not yet bathed, blood stains remained visible on his face and arms, and he was disheveled. Consolvo claims that he was deprived of due process because the district judge failed to grant him a continuance to allow him to clean up prior to either jury trial.

We have reviewed the record and Consolvo’s claims, and find no reversible error. The district court’s denial of a defendant’s motion for a continuance is within its broad and deferential discretion. Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11-12, 103 S.Ct. 1610, 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983); United States v. Hoyte, 51 F.3d 1239, 1245 (4th Cir.1995). It is the district court that alone has the opportunity to assess the candidness of the movant’s request. Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589, 84 S.Ct. 841, 11 L.Ed.2d 921 (1964). Consolvo’s factual assertions regarding his appearance are not supported by the record. Prior to ruling on either of Consolvo’s motions for continuance, the district court made specific factual findings regarding Consolvo’s appearance, and determined, based upon those findings, that a continuance was not necessary. We find that the district court’s findings of fact with regard to its denials of Consolvo’s motions for continuance were adequate to support its determination. United States v. Samuel, 431 F.2d 610, 615 (4th Cir.1970).

We therefore affirm Consolvo’s convictions and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.