[DO NOT PUBLISH]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,

versus

FRANK C. CALMES,

et al.,

Defendants,

MANNY J. SHULMAN, 

KRYSTAL A. BECNEL,

Defendants - Appellants.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern 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 5 
2

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 offered 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 

made false statements in connection with some of those sales in violation 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 imposed civil penalties against Shulman and 

ordered both Shulman and Becnel, a relief defendant, to disgorge the proceeds of 

the securities fraud. Shulman and Becnel argue that the district court erred when it 

refused to grant them a continuance of their trial and limited their crossexamination 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. 

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

(11th Cir. 1999).

The district court acted within its discretion to deny 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 5 
3

that we consider in reviewing that decision include (1) whether the appellants were 

diligent in 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 these factors weigh against Shulman and Becnel. Shulman and Becnel’s 

attorney withdrew nearly nine months 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 requested a 45-day continuance, but counsel had not 

filed a notice of appearance and allegedly was on vacation. See United States v. 

Baker, 432 F.3d 1189, 1250–51 (11th Cir. 2005). The district court had scheduled 

the trial nearly a year in advance, and the Commission 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. The denial of a continuance was neither

arbitrary nor unreasonable.

Case: 11-15854 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 3 of 5 
4

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 providing

unresponsive and narrative answers. On cross-examination, Reisch argued with 

and interrupted 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 

responses from Reisch. The district court has the authority to manage its 

courtroom to ensure that the examination of witnesses 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 primarily 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” were unanswered or how it prejudiced his defense. The 

district court acted within 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. See United States v. Maxwell, 

579 F.3d 1282, 1296 (11th Cir. 2009).

Case: 11-15854 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 4 of 5 
5

We AFFIRM the judgment against Shulman and Becnel.

Case: 11-15854 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 5 of 5