Case ID: f-appx_70/html/0943-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter
    
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ray PRINCE, aka Farid Ashour; Drew Barksdale; Raymond Dyehouse; Robert Goldstein; Maxwell Royce Harris; Tom Larsen; Prience Owens; Prince Owens; Ray Owens; Ray Anthony Owens; Alexander Sallis; Raymond Scott; Anthony Smith; Prince Smith; Prince Anthony Smith; Ray Smith; Ray Anthony Smith; Roger Smith; Tony Smith; Tony Ray Smith; Agent Sebulski, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-50390.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 11, 2003.
    
    Decided July 21, 2003.
    Before: KOZINSKI, FERNANDEZ, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ray Prince appeals his convictions for mail fraud and wire fraud. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341,1343, 2. We affirm.

(1) There was probable cause for the search of the automobile at the hotel where Prince was arrested. See California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 579, 111 S.Ct. 1982, 1991, 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991); United States v. Elliott, 322 F.3d 710, 715 (9th Cir.2003); United States v. Green, 962 F.2d 938, 942 (9th Cir.1992); United States v. Holzman, 871 F.2d 1496, 1504 (9th Cir. 1989). Thus, the district court did not err when it refused to suppress the fruits of that search.

(2) The district court properly permitted Prince to take over self-representation in the middle of the trial. See United States v. Lopez-Osuna, 242 F.3d 1191, 1199-1200 (9th Cir.2001); United States v. Farhad, 190 F.3d 1097, 1099-1100 (9th Cir. 1999).

(3) Considering the record and the factors involved in determining whether to grant a continuance, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in this case when it denied Prince a late pretrial and a mid-trial continuance. See United States v. Zamora-Hemandez, 222 F.3d 1046, 1049 (9th Cir.2000); United States v. Garrett, 179 F.3d 1143, 1144-45 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc); Smith v. Stewart, 140 F.3d 1263, 1272 (9th Cir.1998).

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.