Case ID: f-appx_415/html/0783-01.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. Rene LUNA-MARADIAGA, aka Rene Antonio Luna-Maradiaga, Defendant—Appellant.
    Nos. 09-10452, 09-10453.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed Feb. 23, 2011.
    Robert Lally Miskell, Assistant U.S., USTU-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Saul M. Huerta, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDAZ-Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated appeals, Rene Luna-Maradiaga appeals from the 92-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and from the 21-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Luna-Maradiaga’s sole argument on appeal is that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a continuance of the sentencing and disposition hearing. The district court did not abuse its discretion, as it granted numerous other continuance requests and Luna-Maradiaga fails to demonstrate any prejudice arising from the denial. See Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589, 84 S.Ct. 841, 11 L.Ed.2d 921 (1964); United States v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1352, 1358 (9th Cir.1985), amended by 764 F.2d 675 (9th Cir.1985); see also United States v. Wills, 88 F.3d 704, 711 (9th Cir.1996).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.