United States Court of Appeals

FortheSeventhCircuit

Chicago,Illinois60604

ArguedNovember17,2009

DecidedNovember24,2009

Before

FRANKH.EASTERBROOK,ChiefJudge

ILANADIAMONDROVNER,CircuitJudge

DIANES.SYKES,CircuitJudge

No.091384

UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA,

PlaintiffAppellee,

v.

KEITHCOOK,

DefendantAppellant.

AppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrict

CourtfortheNorthernDistrictofIllinois,

EasternDivision.

No.07CR1121

RubenCastillo,

Judge.

ORDER

OnthesecondtolastdayofKeithCook’strialforembezzlementandfalsifying

unionrecords,justbeforethegovernmentrested,Cook’slawyersinformedthedistrictcourt

thathewouldtestifybuttheyneededtimetohelphimprepare.Counselaskedthecourtto

adjournfortheday,butthecourtdeniedthisrequest.Cookthentestified,andonthenext

dayoftrialwasfoundguiltyofbothcharges.Onappealhechallengesthedenialofhis

requestforacontinuance.Weupholdthedistrictcourt’srulingandaffirmCook’s

convictions.



Throughhisworkasarailroadconductor,Cookbecamesecretarytreasurerofhis

localtransportationunion.Heservedfrom2002until2004,whenanauditordiscovered

NONPRECEDENTIALDISPOSITION

Tobecitedonlyinaccordancewith

FED. R. APP. P.32.1
No.091384 Page2

thatCookhadwrittenhimselfanumberofunauthorizedchecksonunionaccountstotaling

over$45,000.FollowinganinvestigationthegovernmentchargedCookwithembezzling

theassetsofalabororganization,29U.S.C.§501(c),andmakingafalseentryinunion

recordsrequiredtobekeptbylaw,id.§439(c).Overthenext17months,Cooktwice

succeededingettinghisappointedcounselreplaced—thesecondtimeontheeveof

trial—andtwicethepartiesreachedapleaagreementonlytohaveCookchangehismindat

thechangeofpleahearing.

Oncetrialbeganthedistrictcourt’sschedulerequiredmultiplebreaksinthe

proceedings,sothetrialranSeptember23,89,12,and15,2008.OnFriday,September12,

followingatwodayrecess,defensecounseltoldthecourtthatCookhaddecidedon

Tuesdaythathewouldtestify,buttheyhadnotsucceededinmeetingwithhimon

WednesdayorThursdaytogooverhistestimony.CounselexplainedthatCook,whowas

onbond,hadmissedmultipleappointmentswiththemduringtherecessbecausehewas

calledintowork,andtrafficthatmorninghadpreventedhimfromarrivingattheiroffice

earlyenoughtoprepare.Inlightofthislackofpreparation,Cook’scounselmovedfora

continuanceuntilMonday,September15.Prosecutorsopposedthemotion,arguingthat

theyalwayshadbelievedCookwouldtestifyandthathehadbeengivenadequatetimeto

preparegiventhedelaysinbringingthecasetotrial.Thecourtagreedthattherehadbeen

“ampleopportunity”toprepare.Thecourtexplainedthatthecasehadbeen“problematic”

togettotrialeventhoughitwasnotcomplicated,andoncethetrialgotunderwayCook

hadnotmadeitapriorityortakenadvantageofthe“veryliberal”schedule.Thecourtalso

notedthatithadanothercasescheduledfortrialimmediatelyafterCook’s,andwithonly

onejuryroomitcouldnot“riskanyfurtherday”inthecase.Inlightofwhatthecourt

characterizedasCook’s“machinations”inpreventingthetrialfromstartingsoonerandhis

“audacitytonotprepareandtowanttotestify,”thecourtdeniedthemotion.Butthecourt

didrecessforanearlyandlongerlunchtoallowCooksometimetoprepare;afterlunch

Cooktookthestand.TrialconcludedonMondaywithclosingarguments,andthejury

returnedguiltyverdictsonbothchargeslatethatsameday.ThecourtlatersentencedCook

toatotalofoneyearandadayinprison.

Wereviewthedenialofacontinuanceforabuseofdiscretionandwillnotreverse

absentashowingofactualprejudice.UnitedStatesv.Miller,327F.3d598,601(7thCir.

2003);UnitedStatesv.Tolliver,937F.2d1183,118788(7thCir.1991).Adistrictcourtmay

evaluateanynumberoffactorsindecidingwhetheracontinuanceisjustified,includingthe

ageandcomplexityofthecase,theamountoftimealreadymadeavailableforpreparation

andthedefendant’sroleinshorteningtheeffectivepreparationtime,whetherthedefendant

hastriedto“game”thesystem,theavailabilityofdiscovery,thelikelihoodthata

continuancewillsatisfythedefendant’sneeds,whetherthegovernmentopposesthe
No.091384 Page3

proposedcontinuance,theinconvenienceorhardshiptothecourtorothers,andthe

likelihoodthatdenyingacontinuancewillprejudicethedefendant.SeeUnitedStatesv.

Williams,576F.3d385,390(7thCir.2009);Miller,327F.3dat601;UnitedStatesv.Chiappetta,

289F.3d995,999(7thCir.2002).Theimportanceofanysinglefactordependsonthe

individualcircumstancesofacase,andassigningtherelativeweightofthefactorsisbest

lefttothediscretionofthedistrictcourt.Williams,576F.3dat389;Miller,327F.3dat601.

Twocaseswithoppositeoutcomeshelptoillustratetheapplicationofthesefactors.

InUnitedStatesv.Farr,weheldthatthetrialjudgedidnotabusehisdiscretionindenying

thedefendant’srequestforacontinuancemadeonthemorningoftrial.297F.3d651(7th

Cir.2002).Wereasonedthatthedenialwasproperbecausethedefendanthadbeengranted

twocontinuancesalreadyandcounsel’slackofpreparationfortrialclearlyresultedfrom

thedefendant’sconsistentrefusaltocooperatewithhisattorneyandassistinthe

preparationofhisdefense.Id.at656.Weconcludedthatwewouldnotfinderrorinthe

denialofacontinuance“[w]hereadefendant’sobstinatebehaviorplayedasignificantpart

inunderminingtheabilityofcounseltopreparefortrial.”Id.Conversely,inUnitedStates

v.Heron,weheldthatthedistrictcourtabuseditsdiscretionindenyingacontinuance

whereonthedaybeforetrialakeyprosecutionwitnesshadchangedhisplannedtestimony

inamannerthatportrayedthedefendantasanactive,ratherthanreluctant,participantin

thetransportationofdrugs.564F.3d879,88183(7thCir.2009).Wenotedthatthe

defendanthadessentiallynotimetoprepareforthechangedtestimonyanddidnot

contributetothetimepressure,andthatacontinuancewouldhaveallowedhimto

investigatethis“crucialpiece”ofnewevidence.Id.at883.



IndenyingCook’srequestforacontinuance,thedistrictcourtfocusedontheageof

thecase,Cook’sroleinshorteningtheavailabletimeforpreparation,Cook’sprevious

“machinations”indelayingthecasefortrial,andtheinconvenienceapostponementwould

causetothecourtgivenitspendingcaseload.Althoughtheseareacceptable

considerations,see Chiappetta,289F.3dat999;Williams,576F.3dat389,Cookarguesthatthe

districtcourtnonethelessabuseditsdiscretionbecauseanyinconveniencetothecourt

wouldhavebeenminimalwhiledenyingthecontinuancedirectlyprejudicedhisrightto

testify.Cook’sjuryreturnedguiltyverdictsatalmost5:00p.m.onMonday,sothecourt

guessedcorrectlythatpostponinghistestimonyuntilthatmorningwouldhavepushedthe

trialintoTuesdayanddelayedthestartofthecourt’snexttrial.WhateverCookmightthink

aboutthesignificancetothecourtoflosinganotherdayfromitsschedule,thejudgehad

discretiontoassesstheburdenonhiscaseloadalongwithanyoftheotherrelevantfactors.

SeeMiller,327F.3dat601.Wehavenotedthatthe“typicalreasonstodenyacontinuance

arethatthedefendantshortenedherownpreparationtimeandthatadelaywillburdenthe

court.”Williams,576F.3dat390.Cook’sfailuretomeetwithhisattorneysduringthetwo
No.091384 Page4

dayrecessbeforehetestifiedparallelsthedefendant’sactionsinFarr,whereweupheldthe

denialofacontinuanceinlightofthedefendant’s“obstinatebehavior”andconsistent

refusaltoassistinthepreparationofhisdefense.See297F.3dat656.UnlikeinHeron,

wherecircumstancesoutsidethedefendant’scontrolcreatedashortageoftimetoprepare,

Cookwasatfaultfordecidingthatgoingtoworkwasmoreimportantthankeepinghis

appointmentswithcounselduringthetwodayshecouldhavebeenpreparing.See564F.3d

at883.Evenifacontinuancewouldhavecausedonlyminimaldelaytothedistrictcourt’s

pendingtrialschedule,giventheamountoftimethathadelapsedbetweentheindictment

andthetrial,thetwodayrecessduringwhichCookcouldhavepreparedtotestifyifhehad

optedtomissadayofwork,andwhatthedistrictcourtperceivedasCook’shistoryof

“machinations”togamethesystem,wefindthatthecourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionin

refusingtograntacontinuance.



ThatconclusionisreinforcedbyCook’sfailuretoexplainhowdenyingtherequested

continuanceprejudicedhim.Cookassertsthathislackofpreparationprejudicedhisright

totestify.Cookdidtestify,buthecontends—withoutelaboration—thatwithmore

preparationhewouldhavebeenbetterabletoanswerthegovernment’squestionsoncross

examination,andinturnthegovernmentwouldnothavebeenabletonegativelyfocuson

histestimonyduringitsclosingargument.Inordertofindprejudicewerequirea

defendanttoshowspecificallywhatmaterialdifferenceacontinuancewouldhavemade.

InUnitedStatesv.Vincent,weaffirmedthedenialofacontinuancewherethedefendant

claimedthatheneededmoretimetoexaminediscoverymaterialsandpreparetocross

examinethegovernment’switnessesbut“neitherpointedtoexculpatoryevidencehewould

havefoundinthediscoverynorproposedadditionalquestionshewouldhaveaskedthe

government’switnesses.”416F.3d593,599(7thCir.2005).Here,similarly,Cookdoesnot

explainhowhistestimonywouldhavedifferedandbenefittedhiscaseifhehadbeen

grantedacontinuance.Hedoesnotspecifywhatanswershewouldhavegivenduringthe

government’scrossexaminationifhehadadditionaltimetoprepareorhowthoseanswers

wouldhavepositivelyaffectedthejury.UnderVincenthisunsupportedassertionof

prejudiceisinsufficient.See id.



Accordingly,weAFFIRMthedistrictcourt’sjudgment.