### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T M ar c h 17, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 14817 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 2 0 8 5 4 - C R - P AS U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s S A M U E L T H O M A S J O N E S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 17, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: S am uel T ho m as Jones app ea l s the deni al of hi s r equestfor acont i nu ance2

d u r in g h is s e n te n c in g h e a r in g . J o n e s s o u g h t th e c o n tin u a n c e to a llo w h im tim e to procure the t es t i m on y of hi s a tt orney c hal l engi ng an A ri zona conv i ct i on of Jones tha tw a s us e d t o e nha nc e J one s ’ s s e nt e nc e . B e c a us e J one s ha d s uf f i c i e ntt i m e a nd oppor tuni ty t o pr oc ur e thi s t e s t i m ony be f or e he r e que s t e d ac ont i nua nc e , the d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n w h e n it d e n ie d J o n e s ’s r e q u e s t. B AC KG RO UN D J o n e s w a s in d ic te d o n N o v e m b e r4 , 2 0 0 4 , o n o n e c o u n t o f p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te m e th a m p h e ta m in e a n d o n e c o u n t o f p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to di stri bu t e M D M A (“ E cs t ac y” ). 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1(a) (1), (b)( 1)(B ). O n F ebruary 24 , 20 05 , the go vernm entfi l ed a not i ce of i nt entt o see k enh ance d p enal t i es base d on J one s ’ s 2002 A r i z onaf e l ony c onvi c t i on. 21 U . S . C . § 851. T he e nha nc e m e nt i nc r e a s e d J one s m a nda t ory m i ni m um s e nt e nc e f r om 5 y e a r s t o 10 y e a r s a nd i nc r e a s e d hi s m a xi m um s e nt e nc e f r om 40 y e a r s t o l i f

e i m pr i s onm e nt . O n A pr i l 7, 2005, J one s pl e a de d gui l ty t o both c ha r ge s , w i thouta w r i tt e n pl e aa gr e e m e nt . T he di s tr i c tc our ts e ta s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng f orJ une 27. O n J une 23, J one s m ove d f ora 30- da y c ont i nua nc e t o de f e nd a ga i ns tthe s e c tio n 8 5 1 e n h a n c e m e n t o n th e g r o u n d th a t h e w a s c h a lle n g in g h is A r iz o n as ta te c onvi c t i on a s unc ons t i tut i ona l . T he di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d the c ont i nua nc e a nd re sc hedu l ed the se nt enci ng hear i ng for A ug ust8. A tthe A ug ust8 h ea ri ng , Jones3

re qu es t ed another 48-ho ur cont i nu ance t o p rodu ce hi s A ri zona st at e c ou rtcoun se l ora n a f f i da vi tf r om the s t a t e c our tc ouns e l . T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d the c ont i nua nc e a nd pr oc e e de d w i th the s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng. STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW W e r evi ew the deni al of a r equestfor c on t i nu ance by the di stri ctcourtfor a n abuse of di sc re t i on . U ni t ed S t at es v. B er go ui gn an, 76 4 F . 2d 15 03 , 15 08 (11th C i r. 19 85 ). DI S CUS S I ON W e c ons i de rf

ourf a c t or s w he n w e de t e rm i ne w he the rthe de c i s i on of the d is tr ic t c o u r t to d e n y a r e q u e s t f o ra c o n tin u a n c e is s o a rb itr a ry a n d u n r e a s o n ab le tha ti tc ons t i tut e s a n abus e of di s c r e t i on: ( 1) the di l i ge nc e of

the de f e ns e i n i nt e rvi e w i ng the w i tne s s a nd pr oc ur i ng hi s t e s t i m ony ; ( 2) the pr obabi l i ty of obt a i ni ng the t e s t i m ony w i th i n a reaso n ab l e t i m e; (3 ) th e sp eci fi ci ty w i th w h i ch th e d efen se w as ab l e t o d escri b e th e w i tn ess’ s ex p ect ed k n o w l ed g e o r t est i m o n y; a nd ( 4) the de gr e e t o w hi c h s uc h t e s t i m ony w a s e xpe c t e d t o be f a vor abl e t o the a c c us e d, a nd the uni que orc um ul a t i ve na tur e of the t est i m o n y. U ni t ed S t at es v. W ri gh t , 63 F . 3d 10 67 , 10 71 (11th C i r. 19 95 ) ( qu ot i ng U ni t ed S t at es v . C ro ss, 9 2 8 F . 2 d 1 0 3 0 , 1 0 4 8 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 1 )). B ecau se n o n e o f th ese f a c t or s f a vorJ one s , he c a nnote s t abl i s h tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on. F i rst , Jo n es d i d n o test ab l i sh th ath e w as d i l i g en ti n i n t erv i ew i n g th e w i tn ess4

and p rocuri ng t es t i m on y. Jones r ec ei ved the no t i ce of i nt entt o see k an e nha nc e m e ntf

r om the gove rnm e nti n F e brua ry 2005. J one s r e que s t e d a cont i nu ance four m on ths l at erand rece i ved an add i t i on al 42 days t o p re pare . Jones t es t i fi ed thathe had b ee n i n con t ac tw i th the A ri zona coun se l by June 23 , w hi ch m e a ns J one s ha d 45 da y s be f or e the A ugus t8 he a r i ng t o obt a i n the t e s t i m ony of the A r i z ona c ouns e l , a m or e tha n s uf f i c i e nta m ountof

t i m e . J one s s t a t e d tha tthe A r i z onac ouns e l w a s nothe l pf ul , butJ one s f

a i l e d t o s t a t e w ha te f

f or t s he ha d m a de t o obt a i n the A r i z onac ouns e l ’ s appe a r a nc e a tthe he a r i ng. S e c o n d , J o n e s d id n o t e s tab lis h th a t h e c o u ld h a v e p r o c u r e d th e te s tim o n y in ar e a s onabl e t i m e . J one s w a s unabl e t o pr oc ur e the t e s t i m ony of the A r i z ona c o u n s e l in 4 5 d a y s , a n d h e p r e s e n te d n o e v id e n c e th a t a n a d d itio n a l 4 8 h o u r s w o u ld h av e en ab l ed h i m t o p ro cu re th e t est i m o n y. T hi r d, J one s di d nots pe c i f y w ha tt e s t i m ony he w oul d e l i c i tf r om the A r i z ona coun se l . O n sever al occa si on s a tthe evi dent i ary hea ri ng , Jones s t at ed thathe w as uns ur e aboutthe t e s t i m ony of the A r i z ona c ouns e l . T o f i nd a n abus e of

di s c r e t i on, w e r e qui r e a tl e a s ts om e s pe c i f i c i ty r e ga r di ng the t e s t i m ony of the w i tne s s , a nd J o n e s h a s b e e n u n ab le to p r o v id e it. F i na l l y , J one s f

a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h tha tthe t e s t i m ony w oul d f a vorhi m . A tthe se nt enci ng hear i ng , the di stri ctcourtqu es t i on ed Jones’ s c ou nsel abou tthe ef fe ct5

the A r i z ona pr oc e e di ngs . J one s ’ s c ouns e l r e pe a t e dl y s t a t e d tha the di d notknow A r i z onal a w a nd tha tA r i z ona l a w f orc ha l l e ngi ng ac onvi c t i on i s di f f e r e ntf r om F l or i dal a w . T hi s a s s e r t i on f a i l e d t o e s t abl i s h tha tthe t e s t i m ony of the A r i z ona co u n sel w o u l d actu al l y b en efi tJo n es. CONCL US I ON B ec ause no ne of the fa ct ors s up po rt s J on es ’ s a rgum entthatthe di stri ctcourt abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on w he n i tde ni e d J one s ’ s r e que s tf ora c ont i nua nc e , the de c i s i on o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is AF F I RME D.