[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 11

- 15854 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 9:09

- cv - 80524

- WJZ

SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v ersus FRANK C. CALMES, et al., Defendants, MANNY J. SHULMAN, KRYSTAL A. BECNEL, Defendants

- Appellants.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Sout hern District of Florida

________________________ (November 30, 2012) Before PRYOR, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 11-15854 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 1 of 52 Manny Shulman and his wife, Krystal Becnel, appeal the judgment against them in a civil enforcement action by the Securities and Exchange Commission. A jury found that Shulman offer ed and sold unregistered securities in violation of Section 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77e(a), ( c), and mad e false statements in connection with some of those sales in violat ion of Section 10(b) of the Act, id. § 78j(b), and accompanying Rule 10b

- 5 , 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b

- 5. The district court impos ed civil penalties against Shulman and order ed both Shulman and B ecnel, a relief defendant, t o disgorge the proceeds o f the securities fraud. Shulman and Becnel argue that the district court erred when it refused to grant them a continuance o f their trial and l imited their cross

examination of a hostile witness . We affirm.
We review for abuse of discretion both rulings of the district court. “ [T] he denial of a continuance is within the broad discretion of the district court and will not be overturned unless arbitrary or unreasonable.” Quiet Tech. DC

- 8, Inc. v.
Hur el

- Dubois UK Ltd. , 326 F.3d 1333, 1351 (11 th Cir

. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted)

. And the district court exercises “wide discretion to control the

cross - examination of witnesses.” United States v. Guzman , 167 F.3d 1350 , 1352 ( 11 th Cir

. 1999 ). The district court acted within its discretion to den y Shulman and Becnel’s motion to continue , which was filed less than a week before their trial. The factors

Case: 11-15854 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 2 of 53 that we c onsider in reviewing th at decision include (1) whether the appellants were diligent i n preparing for trial; (2) “ how likely it is that the need for a continuance could have been met if the continuance had been granted ”; (3) “the extent to which granting the continuance would have inconvenienced the court and the opposing party , including its witnesses”; and ( 4 ) “the extent to which the appellant might have suffered harm as a result of the

. . . denial.” Quiet Tech. , 326 F.3d at 1351. All t he se factors w eigh against Shulman and Becnel. Shulman and Becnel’s attorney withdrew nearly nine m onths before trial , yet Shulman and Becnel proceeded pro se assuming that they would reach a settlement with the Commission . When negotiations disintegrated a week before trial , Shulman and Becnel retained counsel and request ed a 45

- day continuance , but c ounsel had not filed a notice of appearance and allegedly was on vacation. See United States v. Baker , 432 F.3d 1189 , 1250

– 51 ( 11 th Cir

. 2005 ). T he district court had scheduled the trial nearly a year in advance, and the C ommission had witnesses travel from out of state

. See Morris v. Slappy , 461 U.S. 1, 11, 103 S. Ct. 1610, 1616 (1983)

. Shulman and Becnel argue about being “deprived of necessary witnesses,” but Shulman and Becnel squandered the additional time given them during a recess to subpoena their codefendants as witnesses

. T he denial of a continuance was n either arbitrary n or unreasonable.

Case: 11-15854 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 3 of 54 The district court also acted well within its discretion during Shulman’s

cross - examination of Dr. Marvin Reisch. Reisch , a former associate of Shulman who had lost his office for his ophthalmology practice while involved in one of Shulman’s failed schemes , was a hostile witness who was prone to provid ing unresponsive and narrative answers

. On cross

- examination, Reisch argued with

an d interrupt ed Shulman. To ensure that Reisch’s conduct did not overwhelm the

cross - examination, the district court reminded Reisch repeatedly to answer questions directly and succinctly , and the court restated questions to elicit
response s from Reisch. T he district court has the authority to manage its
courtroom t o ensure that the examination of witness es is “effective for determining the truth” and does not “wast[e] time,” Fed. R. Evid. 611(a), and Shulman acknowledges that the district court acted prima rily in his interest to “get Reisch to testify

. ” Shulman complains that being instructed to “move on [] le[ft] critical matters . . . [about] Reisch’s credibility unanswered , ” but Shulman fails to identify what “critical matters” we re unanswered or how it prejudiced his defense. The district court acted with in its discretion by instructing Shulman periodically to “move on” when he asked repetitive questions, which did not impair Shulman’s ability to explore Reisch ’s bias or other issues affecting his credibility, including his medical practice and other lawsuits against him. S ee United States v. Maxwell , 579 F.3d 1282 , 1296 ( 11 th Cir

. 2009 )

.

Case: 11-15854 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 4 of 55 We AFFIRM the judgment against Shulman and Becnel. Case: 11-15854 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 5 of 5