Case ID: f-appx_175/html/0860-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Roland SEATON, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 04-30493.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2006.
    
    Decided April 10, 2006.
    Lori Harper Suek, Esq., USGF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    David F. Ness, Esq., Evangelo Arvanetes, Esq., FDMT-Federal Defenders of Montana (Great Falls), Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: HAWKINS, MCKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael Roland Seaton appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction to one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), and 846. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Seaton contends that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his request for a continuance to obtain a new lawyer at his sentencing hearing. A district court abuses its discretion if the denial was arbitrary and unreasonable. See United States v. Wills, 88 F.3d 704, 711 (9th Cir.1997). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance because the relevant factors weighed against Seaton’s motion for a continuance, see United States v. Fowlie, 24 F.3d 1059, 1069 (9th Cir.1994), and Seaton cannot show prejudice by the denial, see Wills, 88 F.3d at 711.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.