Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06171/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06171-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gustavo DeJesus Ruiz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

, " 

FILED 

United St.ates Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS- Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

GUSTAVO DeJESUS RUIZ, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

OCT 1 ~ 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-6171 

(D.C. No. CR-90-125-R) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant Gustavo DeJesus Ruiz was convicted by a jury of 

conspiracy to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. On appeal he raises two issues, 

whether the court erred (1) in overruling defendant's motion for 

acquittal based on insufficiency of the evidence to show defendant 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-6171 Document: 010110090806 Date Filed: 10/11/1991 Page: 1 
was a member of a conspiracy within five years of the date of the 

indictment, and (2) in denying defendant's motion for a continuance. 

We have reviewed the transcript of the trial and are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction of having been a member, within five years of the indictment, of the charged conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The date 

of the indictment was June 20, 1990. Jose Alberto Munoz testified 

that in December 1985 he obtained cocaine from defendant, sold it 

to Rick Kutej, and gave the money to defendant. I Supp. R. at 

102-03. Mary Munoz testified that in October or November 1985 

defendant provided her husband with cocaine for resale. I Supp. 

R. at 181-82. Testimony by Melvin "Butch" Ayers and Ricky Joe 

Kutej also implicated defendant in the conspiracy to distribute 

cocaine. I Supp. R. at 142, 152, 215. Viewing the evidence in 

the light most favorable to the government, there was substantial 

evidence to support the jury finding of guilt. See United States 

v. Boley, 730 F.2d 1326, 1329-30 (10th Cir. 1984). 

We apply an abuse of discretion standard to the court's 

denial of a motion for continuance. See United States v. 

Mitchell, 765 F.2d 130, 132 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 

983 (1985). In deciding whether to grant a continuance, the district court balances the following factors: 

1) the nature of the case and whether the parties have 

been allowed adequate time for trial preparation; 

2) the diligence of the party requesting the continuance; 

3) the conduct of the opposing party and whether a lack 

of cooperation has contributed to the need for a continuance; 

4) the effect of the continuance and whether a delay 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-6171 Document: 010110090806 Date Filed: 10/11/1991 Page: 2 
will seriously disadvantage either party; 

5) the asserted need for the continuance, with weight to 

be given sudden exigencies and unforeseen circumstances. 

United States v. Coronel-Quintana, 752 F.2d 1284, 1287-88 (8th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 819 (1985) (citations omitted). 

Defendant argues that the continuance he requested a few days 

before trial should have been granted to permit him to examine 

testimony given by witness Jose Alberto Munoz in a criminal case 

in the District of New Jersey. Defendant points out that he was 

informed only six days before trial that Munoz would testify 

against him; however, this was not a sudden exigency. Munoz had 

testified against defendant six months earlier in the New Jersey 

trial, and the likelihood Munoz could again be a witness against 

him was known to defendant in time to request the transcript well 

before trial in the instant case. Moreover, the government 

cooperated and attempted to obtain a transcript, but a transcript 

had never been ordered and thus was not readily available. 

Furthermore, defendant made no showing that a transcript would 

have assisted in cross-examining or impeaching Munoz. 

Even if defendant is correct in his assertion that the 

transcript would have assisted in cross-examination of Munoz 

regarding use of Western Union money order transfers, there were 

four other witnesses who testified to the use of such money 

transfers to relay cocaine proceeds to defendant, and the 

transcript could not possibly have aided in the impeachment of 

th ose wi 't nesses. 1 After review, we are satisfied that the 

1 The district court noted that a continuance would have required 

that witnesses made available under security arrangements be "sent 

Continued to next page 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-6171 Document: 010110090806 Date Filed: 10/11/1991 Page: 3 
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the 

continuance. 

AFFIRMED. 

Continued from previous page 

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

back." I Supp. R. at 11. A delay due to a continuance thus could 

have disadvantaged the government. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-6171 Document: 010110090806 Date Filed: 10/11/1991 Page: 4