Case ID: f-appx_478/html/0142-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert Anthony INZANO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-51121
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 25, 2012.
    
      Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Shannon Charles Hooks, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Robert Anthony Inzano appeals from his conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and conspiracy to launder money instruments! He contends solely that the district court erred by denying two pretrial motions for a continuance. He asserts that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel because his attorney lacked time to prepare for trial, but he does not indicate how this disadvantaged him.

A district court’s denial of a motion for a continuance is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Walters, 351 F.3d 159, 170 (5th Cir.2003). To demonstrate an abuse of discretion, “the movant must show that the denial resulted in specific and compelling or serious prejudice.” United States v. Barnett, 197 F.3d 138, 144 (5th Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

On appeal, Inzano does not indicate that he was prejudiced at trial by the denial of his motions for a continuance, nor does he allege facts suggesting that this was the case. Moreover, the record does not suggest that counsel’s performance was affected by the denial of the continuance motions. Inzano has not demonstrated prejudice sufficient to render the denial of the motions an abuse of discretion. See Barnett, 197 F.3d at 144.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.