T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 ( eff. D ec. 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) an d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 6 . 3 (eff. Jan . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a s s is ta n c e in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Jan u ary11,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. G E R A L D B R O W N , a /k /a “ S k e e t,”

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 8111 (D . o f W y o .) (D . C . N o. 05 -C R -77-A B J)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e O’ BRI EN , S EY M OUR , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. **

A fede r al j ur yfound G er al d A dr i an B r ow n gui l tyon thr ee c ount s i nvol vi ng t he di s t r i but i on of coc ai ne and c ocai ne bas e. O n appea l , he cont ends t he di s tr i ct cour t1) abus ed i t s di s cr et i on bydeny i ng thr ee mot i ons forcont i nuance , and 2) err ed bycons i der i ng evi dence of coc ai ne s al es pr oven onl ybya pr eponder ance of t h e e v i d e n c e a ts e n t e n c i n g . W e fi n d Br o wn ’ s c l a i ms l a c k me r i ta n d AFF I RM .-2- I . Backg r ound In m id -S u m m e r 2 0 0 4 , an in fo rm a n t n o tifie d lo c a l p o lice o ffice rs a b o u t a m an dea l i ng cr ack c ocai ne i n t he C hey enne, W y om i ng r egi on. T he i nform ant knew t he dea l eras “Skeet , ” a r es i dentof C ol or ado Spr i ngs , C ol or ado. She agr eed t o buydrugs fr om Skeetw hi l e w ear i ng a w i r e s o the pol i ce c oul d r ecor d the tr a n s a c tio n s . S k e e t w a s la te r i d e n tifie d a s th e d e fe n d a n t, G e ra ld A d ri a n B ro w n . O n July19 , 20 04 , t he inform ant and B row n arr ang ed to m eetfor a pu rchase o f c ra c k c o c a in e . B ro w n late r c h a n g e d th e p lan a n d h a d th e in fo rm a n t m e e t w ith one of “ hi s gi r l s , ” B r enda Benson, ata new l ocat i on. T he i nform antpur chas ed abouts even gr ams of cr ack c ocai ne for$350 fr om B ens on. B ens on confi r m ed the t r ans act i on att r i al and t es t i fi ed s he made the del i veryon B r ow n’ s behal f. T w o d ay s l at er, on Jul y21 , t he inform ant agai n arr ang ed to purchase c o c a in e f

ro m B ro w n . W h ile w e a ri n g a w ir e , s h e p u rc h a s e d a p p ro x im a te ly 6 .3 gr ams of pow dercoca i ne fr om B r ow n di r ect l y . Fi nal l y , on A ugus t13, 2004, t he i nform antm ade a not herpur chas e of c r ack c ocai ne fr om B r ow n, agai n w ear i ng a w ir e . B r ow n w as s ubs equent l ychar ged w i th 1) one countof ai di ng and abe t t i ng i n t he di s t r i but i on of coc ai ne bas e, 2) one cha r ge of di s tr i but i ng coca i ne bas e, and 3) one cha r ge of di s t r i but i ng coca i ne. R epr es ent ed bycouns el , B r ow n pl eade d notgui l t yon A pr i l 22, 2005, and hi s t r i al w as s etforJ une 28, 2005. O n M ay17, 2005, a new couns el ent er ed an appear ance on B r ow n’ s behal f, and the di s tr i ct-3-

co u rtg ran ted s u b sti tuti o n o f c o u n sel o n M ay1 9 . O n Ju n e 2 , a fo rtn igh t l ater, B r ow n’ s new couns el fi l ed a mot i on t o cont i nue the tr i al . A ft era hea r i ng on J une 15, t he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed the mot i on. M eanw hi l e, on J une 8 and J une 16, the governm entfi l ed a Reques tfor N ot i ce of

A l i bi D efe ns e and a n A m ended Reques tforN ot i ce of A l i bi D efe ns e, a s k i n g t h a tBr o wn d i s c l o s e a n ya l i b i wi tn e s s e s h e p l a n n e d t o u s e a ttr i a l . On J une 24, t he defens e r es ponded t o the r eques t s byfi l i ng a l i s tof ni ne pot ent i al al i bi w i t nes s es as w el l as a s econd mot i on t o cont i nue. T he di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed t he new m ot i on t o cont i nue on J une 28 and the tr i al comm ence d the nextdayas s c h e d u le d . D ur i ng t r i al , B r ow n’ s couns el m ade a n or al thi r d m ot i on t o cont i nue, ci t i ng p rob lem s w ith loca ti n g w itn esse s an d b ri n g ing them to tr ial . T h e d istri ct co u rt d en ied th e m o ti o n . O n Ju ly1 , af ter a three -an d -on e-h alf-d aytr ial , the ju ry r etur ned a gui l t yver di cton al l count s . B r ow n w as s ubs equent l ys ent ence d t o 165 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent , foury ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e, a fi ne of $1, 000, and a s peci al as s es s m entof $300. I I . D i s cus s i on B r ow n ar gues on appea l t hatt he di s tr i ctcourt1) abus ed i t s di s cr et i on by deny i ng hi s t hr ee mot i ons forcont i nuance , and 2) err ed bycons i der i ng evi dence o f c o c a in e s a le s p ro v e n o n ly b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e a t s e n te n c in g . A . D eni als of

Mot i ons f

orC ont i nuance-4-

W e a ffo rd su b sta n tial d isc re tio n to d istric t co u rts in c o n sid e rin g re q u e sts to c o n tin u e tr ia l. United S tates v. R i vera , 900 F. 2d 1462, 1475 ( 10th C i r . 1990) ( ci t i ng Mor r is v. Slappy , 461 U . S. 1, 11 ( 1983) ) . “W e r evi ew the deni al of a m o tio n fo r c o n tin u a n c e o f trial fo r a b u se o f

d isc re tio n a n d w ill fin d e rro r o n lyif th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n w a s a rb itrar yo r u n re a so n a b le a n d m a ter ially pr ej udi ced the defendant . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. D i az , 1 8 9 F . 3 d 1 2 3 9 , 1 2 4 7 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). I n det erm i ni ng w hethert he tr i al cour tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng a c o n tin u a n c e , w e lo o k to fo u r fa c to rs, in c lu d in g : 1 ) th e d ili g e n c e o f th e p a rty re q u e stin g th e c o n tin u a n c e , 2 ) th e lik e lih o o d th e c o n tin u a n c e , if g ra n ted , w o u ld acc om pl i s h t he purpos e under l y i ng the party ’ s expr es s ed nee d forthe cont i nuance , 3) t he i nconveni ence t o the oppos i ng party , i t s w i tnes s es , and the cour tr es ul t i ng fr om t he cont i nuance , and 4) the nee d as s er t ed forthe cont i nuance and the harm t he appe l l antm i ghts uffe ras a r es ul tof the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s deni al of th e c o n tin u a n c e . Id . 1. F i rs tR eques tf

orC ont i nuance A t th e h e a rin g o n th e first c o n tin u a n c e re q u e st, B ro w n ’s c o u n se l b a se d h is req u est o n three g rou n d s: 1) at th e ti m e, he h ad n o t y et rece ived g ran d jury t r ans cr i pt s , 2) he thoughts om e di s coverym i ghtbe out s t andi ng, and 3) he s peci fi cal l yfel tm or e t i m e w as neede d t o r es pond t o the governm ent ’ s al i bi d efen se re q u est. In re sp o n se, th e g o v ern m en t po inted o u t th e g ran d jury-5-

t r ans cr i pt s w er e r eadi l yavai l abl e fr om the courtr eport er s and thatdi s coveryhad been s ubs t ant i al l ycompl et ed. T he di s tr i ctcour tconcl uded the mot i on for cont i nuance w as l ar gel ybas ed on the nee d t o r es pond t o the r eques tforal i bi defe ns e i nform at i on, w hi ch i tfound t o be a s i m pl e t as k; ther efor e, i tdeni ed the m o tio n . T h e c o u rt in ste a d p ro v id e d th e d e fe n se a n a d d iti o n a l eig h t d a y s to re sp o n d to th e a lib i n o tice re q u e st. A p p ly ing the fo u r D i az fa c to rs, w e fin d th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t ab u se its di s cr et i on bydeny i ng t he fi r s tcont i nuance r eques t . Fi r s t , the di l i gence fac t or c u ts in fa v o r o f

n e ith e r p a rty . B ro w n ’s c o u n se l so u g h t th e c o n tin u a n c e a little o v er tw o w ee k s af

ter t ak ing o v er the ca se. W h en co u n sel en tered , h e w as a w are onl y42 day s r emai ned unt i l t r i al . B uthe w ai t ed 16 day s t o fi l e hi s m ot i on for cont i nuance . W hi l e a tw o- w eek de l ayi s notnece s s ar i l yt ar dy , i tw as not p a rt ic u la rl yd ilig e n t, g iv e n th e ra p id ly ap p ro a c h in g tr ia l d a te . T he s econd fact orcut s i n favorof B r ow n. T he defens e r eques t ed the con t i nu ance to al l ow m ore t i m e for dis cov ery , t o acq uir e grand j urytranscr i pts , and t o r es pond t o t he r eques tforal i bi w i tnes s es . Pushi ng the tr i al dat e bac k w o u ld lik e ly p ro v id e B ro w n ’s c o u n s e l m o re tim e to a c c o m p lis h th e s ta te d ta s k s . T h e g o v e rn m e n t m a k e s n o a rg u m e n t th a t th e th ird fa c to r, in c o n v e n ien c e to t he oppos i ng par t yand i t s w i t nes s es , cut s one w ayorthe other . T he thi r d fac t or w il l nea rl yalw ay s cu t sl igh tl yin fav o r of the o p p o sing p artyo n lyb ec au se th ere w ill in e v itab lyb e so m e in c o n v e n ien c e to re sc h e d u lin g ; th u s o u r re lev a n t q u e ryis-6-

t he degr ee t o w hi ch the thi r d fac t orcut s i n favorof the oppos i ng party . T he g o v e rn m e n t m a d e n o c o n ten tio n its w itn e ss e s o r its c o u n se l w o u ld b e p a rticu lar ly in c o n v e n ie n c e d b yth is m o tio n , s o w e g iv e th is fa c to r l ittle w e ig h t. M ostrel evan ti s D i az ’s fo u rth fa c to r: w h e th e r B ro w n ’s c o u n se l ac tu a lly need ed ex t ra t i m e t o p repar e for tri al and w hetherB row n w as prej ud i ced as a re su lt. W h e n th e m o tio n fo r c o n tin u a n c e w a s m a d e , 2 6 d a y s s til l re m a in e d u n til tr ial an d 1 6 d ay s h ad alread yp asse d fo r co u n sel t o ac q u ir e the n ec essa ry t r ans cr i pt s and compl et e nec es s arydi s covery . T he defens e couns el m ade no re c o rd to h e lp u s a s s e s s th e n e e d fo r a c o n tin u a n c e o r h a rm f ro m its d e n ia l. N o w h e re in th e re c o rd d id th e d e fe n se d e m o n stra te o r a rg u e sig n ifica n t h a rd sh ip w o u ld a rise in a c c o m p lish in g th e n e c e ss a rytas k s in th e tim e a llo tted w ith o u t a gr antof the cont i nuance . W i t houtm or e of a r ecor d, w e have l i t t l e evi dence that t he fi r s tdeni al harm ed the defendant , thatdefe ns e couns el w as unabl e t o m eett he or i gi nal s chedul e, ort hatanyharm w hi ch mi ghtexi s tbeca us e of the fi xed tr i al dat e w as due t o anyt hi ng bes i des the defens e’ s t ar di nes s . T he bur den her e i s on t he defendantt o s how abus e of di s cr et i on and, and cons i der i ng t he fourth D i az fa c to r, th e b u rd e n is n o t m e t. B row n u rges us t o co nsi der that entryof n ew cou nsel on M ay17 favo rs a m or e l eni ents t ance t ow ar ds t he mot i on. H e ci t es t o Uni t ed Stat es v. K i ng , 664 F. 2d 1171 ( 10t h C i r . 1981) , w her e w e found the deni al of a c ont i nuance vi ol at ed t he defendant ’ s Si xt h A m endmentr i ghtt o effect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el . I n t heE ven the or i gi nal couns el i n the K i ng cas e had l es s t i m e t o pr epar e than 1 n e w c o u n s e l h e re w ith o n ly 2 7 d a y s p a s s in g b e tw e e n K in g ’s a rr a ig n m e n t a n d tr ia l. Id . T he governm enti nves t i gat i on r el evantt o B r ow n occurr ed dur i ng J ul yand

2 A ugus tof 2004. T he gr and j ur yi ndi ctm enti s s ued s even mont hs l at eri n M ar ch, 2 0 0 5 . -7- K i ng cas e, how ever , new couns el onl yhad 12 day s t o pr epar e fortr i al

— notthe 42 d a y s a v a ila b le to n e w c o u n s e l. Id . at 1172. I n 12 day s , K i ng’ s new couns el had 1 t o r es pond t o a compl i cat ed governm entt ax eva s i on cas e thr ee y ear s i n the m aki ng, w i t h a t ot al of al m os t200 w i tnes s es and 5, 000 exhi bi t s . B ycompar i s on, th e c a se h e re re se m b led a ro u tin e trial a d v o c a c yp ro b lem : 1 ) a tw o -m o n th governm enti nves t i gat i on, 2) r el at i vel ys tr ai ghtforw ar d fac t s , and 3) a thr ee- day 2 tr ia l c o n s is tin g o f

n in e w itn e s s e s , a n d fo u rt e e n e x h ib its . T he d i stri ctcou rt ’s den i al of B row n’s fi rs tm oti on t o co nti nu e w as no ab use of di s cr et i on. 2. Second Reques tf

orC ont i nuance D efen se c o u n sel m ad e a sec o n d m o ti o n fo r a c o n ti n u an ce fo u r da y s b efo re t r i al t o s ecur e addi t i onal t i m e t o cont actand arr ange fora numberof al i bi w i t nes s es t o t r avel fr om L oui s i ana t o W y om i ng. A ta hea r i ng the morni ng of t r i al , defe ns e couns el offe r ed t o cal l t hem t o t es t i fybyt el ephone i f the cont i nuance w as deni ed. T he governm entobj ect ed t o the cont i nuance as w el l as t he tel eph on e t est i m on y , bu toffered vi deo t est i m on yas an al t ernat i ve. D efen se couns el t hen r es ponded, “Y ourH onor , I cert ai nl yw oul d pr efe rvi deo as w el l and-8-

w i l l t r yt o arr ange thatand, i f not , w i l l addr es s the C our tas t o w hetheri tcan be byvi deo ort el ephone. ” A pl t . A pp. V ol . 1 at 86 . A fter the d efen se c o u n sel’s conce s s i on, t he courtdeni ed the mot i on t o cont i nue and a gr eed thatvi deo confe r ence w oul d be ac cept abl e. “[W ]hen a co nti nu ance is soug ht t o o btai n w i tnesses, the acc used m ust s how w ho [] [the w i t nes s es ] ar e, w hatthei rt es t i m onyw i l l be, thatthe t es t i m ony w i l l be compet entand r el evant , t hatthe w i tnes s es can pr obabl ybe obt ai ned i f the c o n tin u a n c e is g ra n ted , an d th a t d u e d ili g e n c e h a s b e e n u se d to o b tain th e ir at t endanc e on the days etfort r i al . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 977 F. 2d 1360, 1366 ( 10t h C i r . 1992) ( quot i ng Un itedS ta tes v . Ha rr is , 441 F. 2d 1333, 1336 ( 10t h C i r . 1971) ) . B r ow n agai n has notm ethi s bur den. In B ro w n ’s N o tice o f

A lib i, he listed n in e w itn e ss e s th a t h e in ten d e d to cal l . W hi l e ci t i ng t he t es t i m onyof w i tnes s es as i m por t antt o the defens e, none of t he w i t nes s es pl anned t o offe rpot ent i al al i bi evi dence forJ ul y19, J ul y21, or A u g u st 1 3 , the d a tes o f th e d ru g tra n sa c tio n s c h a rg e d a g a in st B ro w n . In fa c t, defe ns e couns el conce ded thathe w as w ai t i ng unt i l tr i al t o s ee i f anyof the w i t nes s es i n t he al i bi not i ce w er e r el evantbefor e maki ng an effor tt o br i ng t hem fo rw a rd . H e u lti m a telyso u g h t to b rin g o n lytw o o f th e w itn e ss e s to tes tifyto B ro w n ’s a tten d a n c e a t a m u sic fe stiv a l in L o u isia n a o n Ju ly2

– 4 , ev e n tu a lly m ovi ng fora thi r d cont i nuance attr i al aft erhe fa i l ed t o s ecur e thei ratt endanc e. T h e p ro ffe re d tes tim o n yw a s in ten d e d to c a st d o u b t o n th e v a lid ityo f sta tem e n ts-9-

byt w o of the i nves t i gat i ng offi cer s thatB r ow n had bee n s een i n C hey enne on Ju ly1 , 2 0 0 4 , af

ter h e w a s p u lled o v e r fo r a tra ffic v io latio n . T h e w itn e ss e s w o u ld not , how ever , di r ect l ycontr adi ctthe off i cer s ’ s t at ement s and w oul d notpr ovi de a n a lib i fo r t h e d a te s d u ri n g w h ic h th e th re e d ru g d e a ls o c c u rr e d . Fur t herm or e, i f defens e couns el w i s hed t o cal l anyof the al i bi w i tnes s es and coul d nots ecur e thei rt r ans por t at i on t o C hey enne, then the vi deo confer ence al t ernat i ve r emai ned. A tno poi ntdi d the defens e couns el as k forus e of the vi deo c o n fe re n c e o p tio n o r e x p lain th a t itw a s u n a v a ilab le. O n a p p e a l, B ro w n su g g e sts t he tr i al ’ s i m m edi at e comm ence m entaft erdeni al of hi s s econd mot i on for cont i nuance m eantj ur ys el ect i on pr event ed couns el fr om m aki ng t he arr angement s fora vi deo appe ar ance . B utnow her e i n the r ecor d i s ther e any in d ic a tio n d e fe n s e c o u n s e l w a s u n a b le to a rr a n g e s u c h a c o n fe re n c e . A ddi t i onal l y , defe ns e couns el w as cert ai nl yaw ar e thattr i al w as comm enci ng t he n e x t d a yw h e n h e o ffe re d v id e o a n d te le p h o n e a s a lte rn a tiv e s h e w o u ld e x p lo re . A c c o rd in g ly , the d e n ial o f th e se c o n d m o tio n to c o n tin u e w a s a lso w e ll w i t hi n t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s di s cr et i on. 3. Thi r d R eques tf

orC ont i nuance F inally , B row n arg u es in h is r ep lyb ri ef that d u ri n g tr ial the d istri ct co u rt i m pr oper l ydeni ed a thi r d r eques tfora cont i nuance . W e do notcons i der a rg u m e n ts ra is e d fo r t h e fir s t tim e in a re p ly b ri e f. See Anders on v. Uni t ed Stat es D ep’ tof Labor , 4 2 2 F .3 d 1 1 5 5 , 1 1 7 4

– 7 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (iss u e s n o t ra ise d in-10-

openi ng br i ef a r e w ai ved) . E ven i f w e di d, B r ow n has notdemonstr at ed under D i azo r Harris th e im p o rta n c e o f th e w itn e ss e s a n d th e h a rm c re a ted b yth e ir abs ence . B . Sent enci ng W e re v iew lega l i n terpretati o n s o f th e se n tenc ing g u idelines an d w h ethe r a d e fe n d a n t’s s e n ten c e v io late s th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t de novo . Uni t ed Stat es v. Ma r tin ez, 4 1 8 F .3 d 1 1 3 0 , 1 1 3 3 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); Un itedS ta tes v . D o w e ll , 430 F. 3d 1100, 1109 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) . W e r evi ew anyfac tual fi ndi ngs ats ent enci ng fo r c le a r e rr o r. Mar t i nez , 4 1 8 F .3 d a t 1 1 3 3 . A j ur yfound B r ow n gui l t yof thr ee c ount s of i l l egal drug s al es i nvol vi ng a total of 1 4 . 5 g ram s o f c o ca ine a n d co ca ine b ase . A t sen tenc ing , the d istri ct co u rt al l ow ed i n evi dence of otheral l eged drug s al es byB r ow n and det erm i ned B r ow n’ s s ent ence s houl d r efl ects al es of 1, 206 gr ams orover1. 2 ki l os of coc ai ne and coc ai ne bas e. T he defendantar gues , i n l i ghtof Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , t hata ques t i on s t i l l r emai ns as t o w hatevi dent i arybur den sh o u ld b e u sed at sen tenc ing to m ak e find ing s in a d d it ion to tho se fo u n d b ya jury att r i al . D efe ndantar gues fora s t andar d hi gherthan the pr eponder ance of the e v id e n c e u se d b yth e d istric t co u rt. W e made cl ear , how ever , i n Uni t ed Stat es v. Magal lanez , 408 F. 3d 672, 684–85 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) , t hata di s tr i ctcour ti s notbound bythe fi ndi ngs of the j ur yats ent enci ng. R ather , s ent enci ng fac t s ar e bas ed on the evi dence andIn hi s r eplybri ef, defe nd ant appears t o co nced e t he argu m ent and rai ses a 3 new i s s ue. H e s ugges t s t he pr eponder ance of the evi dence s t andar d di d not s uppor tt he s ent enci ng j udge’ s fi ndi ng thathe pos s es s ed a f i r earm i n connec t i on w i t h hi s drug deal i ng act i vi t y . T hus , t he s ent enci ng j udge s houl d nothave a dded a tw o -le v e l in c re a se u n d e r th e se n ten c in g g u id e lin e s. T h is iss u e is w a iv e d a s it w a s n o t r a is e d in th e o p e n in g b ri e f. See Anders on , 422 F. 3d at1174–75 ( di s cus s i ng t he r eas on fort hi s rul e) . B uteven i f w e w er e i ncl i ned t o i gnor e the w ai ver , t he hi gh s t andar d of cl earerr orr evi ew w oul d notal l ow us t o over turn t he ju d g e ’s r u lin g th a t th e .4 5 c a lib e r c lip a n d b u llets c a rrie d b yB ro w n w e re in c o n n e c tio n w ith d ru g d e a lin g a n d su p p o rte d th e fire a rm e n h a n c e m e n t. -11- t es t i m onypr es ent ed ats ent enci ng undera pr eponder ance of the evi dence s t andar d. A s a r es ul t , B r ow n’ s ar gum entfai l s and the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s fi ndi ngs re g a rd in g d ru g q u a n titie s a re te s te d fo r c le a r e rr o r. T h e re is n o c le a r e rr o r h e re . 3 I I I . C oncl usi on Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e fi nd no m er i ti n defe ndant ’ s cont ent i ons t he d is tr ic t c o u rt a b u s e d its d is c re tio n b yd e n y in g h is m u ltip le c o n tin u a n c e m o tio n s . I n l i ghtof ourhol di ng i n Magal lanez , w e a ls o d e n yh is c la im o f s e n te n c in g e rr o r. T he d i stri ctcou rti s A F F IR M E D on al l cou nts . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge