# United 

# States Court of Appeals

FortheSeventhCircuitChicago,Illinois60604

ArguedNovember17,2009DecidedNovember24,2009

Before

FRANKH.EASTERBROOK,ChiefJudge

ILANADIAMONDROVNER,CircuitJudge

DIANES.SYKES,CircuitJudge

No.091384

UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA, PlaintiffAppellee ,

v.

KEITHCOOK, DefendantAppellant

. AppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheNorthernDistrictofIllinois,EasternDivision.

No.07CR1121

RubenCastillo, Judge

.

ORDER
OnthesecondtolastdayofKeithCook’strialforembezzlementandfalsifyingunionrecords,justbeforethegovernmentrested ,Cook’slawyersinformedthedistrictcourtthathewouldtestifybuttheyneededtimetohelp himprepare.Counselaskedthecourttoadjournfortheday,butthecourtdeniedthisrequest.Cookthentestified,andonthenextdayoftrialwasfoundguiltyofbothcharges.Onappealhechallengesthedenialofhisrequestforacontinuance.Weupholdthe districtcourt’srulingandaffirmCook’sconvictions.Throughhisworkasarailroadconductor, Cookbecamesecretarytreasurerofhislocaltransportationunion.Heservedfrom2002 until2004,whenanauditordiscoveredNONPRECEDENTIALDISPOSITIONTobecitedonlyinaccordancewith F ED

. R. A PP

. P.32.1No.091384 Page2

thatCookhadwrittenhimselfanumber ofunauthorizedchecksonunionaccountstotalingover$45,000.FollowinganinvestigationthegovernmentchargedCookwithembezzlingtheassetsofalabororganization,29U.S.C.§501(c),andmakingafalseentryinunionrecordsrequiredtobekeptbylaw,id. §439(c).Overthenext17months,Cooktwicesucceededingettinghisappointedcounselreplaced—the secondtimeontheeveoftrial—andtwicethepartiesreachedapleaagreement onlytohaveCookchangehismindatthechangeofpleahearing.Oncetrialbeganthedistrictcourt’s schedulerequiredmultiplebreaksintheproceedings,sothetrialranSeptember23,89,12,and15,2008.OnFriday,September12,followingatwodayrecess,defensecounseltoldthecourtthatCookhaddecidedonTuesdaythathewouldtestify,buttheyhad notsucceededinmeetingwithhimonWednesdayorThursdaytogooverhistestimony.Counsel explainedthatCook,whowasonbond,hadmissedmultipleappointmentswith themduringtherecessbecausehewascalledintowork,andtrafficthatmorninghadpreventedhimfromarrivingattheirofficeearlyenoughtoprepare.Inlightofthis lackofpreparation,Cook’scounselmovedforacontinuanceuntilMonday,September15.Prosecutorsopposedthemotion,arguingthattheyalwayshadbelievedCookwouldtestifyandthathehadbeengivenadequatetimetopreparegiventhedelaysinbringingthecasetotrial.Thecourtagreedthattherehadbeen“ampleopportunity”toprepare.Thecourtexplai nedthatthecasehadbeen“problematic”togettotrialeventhoughitwasnotcomplicated,andoncethetrialgotunderwayCookhadnotmadeitapriorityortakenadvantageo fthe“veryliberal”schedule.Thecourtalsonotedthatithadanothercasescheduledfor trialimmediatelyafterCook’s,andwithonlyonejuryroomitcouldnot“riskanyfurtherday”inthecase.InlightofwhatthecourtcharacterizedasCook’s“machinations”inpreventingthe trialfromstartingsoonerandhis“audacitytonotprepareandtowanttotestify,”thecourtdeniedthemotion.Butthecourtdidrecessforanearlyandlongerluncht oallowCooksometimetoprepare;afterlunchCooktookthestand.TrialconcludedonMondaywithclosingarguments,andthejuryreturnedguiltyverdictsonbothchargeslatethatsameday.ThecourtlatersentencedCooktoatotalofoneyearandadayinprison.Wereviewthedenialofacontinuanceforabuseofdiscretionandwillnotreverseabsentashowingofactualprejudice.UnitedStatesv.Miller,327F.3d598,601(7thCir.2003);UnitedStatesv.Tolliver,937F.2d1183,118788(7thCir.1991).Adistrictcourtmayevaluateanynumberoffactorsindecidingwhetheracontinuanceisjustified,includingtheageandcomplexityofthecase,theamounto ftimealreadymadeavailableforpreparationandthedefendant’sroleinshorteningtheeffectivepreparationtime,whetherthedefendanthastriedto“game”thesystem,theavailabilityofdiscovery,thelikelihoodthatacontinuancewillsatisfythedefendant’sneeds,whetherthegovernmentopposestheNo.091384 Page3

proposedcontinuance,theinconvenienceorhardshipt othecourtorothers,andthelikelihoodthatdenyingacontinuancewillprejudicethedefendant.SeeUnitedStatesv. Williams ,576F.3d385,390(7thCir.2009) ;Miller,327F.3dat601; UnitedStatesv.Chiappetta ,289F.3d995,999(7thCir.2002).The importanceofanysinglefactordependsontheindividualcircumstancesofacase,andassigningtherelativeweightofthefactorsisbestlefttothediscretionofthedistrictcourt.Williams ,576F.3dat389; Miller,327F.3dat601.Twocaseswithoppositeoutcomeshelptoillustratetheapplicationofthesefactors.InUnitedStatesv.Farr,weheldthatthetrialjudgedidnotabusehisdiscretionindenyingthedefendant’srequestforacontinuancemadeo nthemorningoftrial.297F.3d651(7thCir.2002).Wereasonedthatthedenialwas properbecausethedefendanthadbeengrantedtwocontinuancesalreadyandcounsel’slackofpreparationfortrialclearlyresultedfromthedefendant’sconsistentrefusaltocooperatewith hisattorneyandassistinthepreparationofhisdefense.Id. at656.Weconcludedthatwewouldnotfinderrorinthedenialofacontinuance“[w]hereadefendant’sobstinatebehaviorplayedasignificantpartinunderminingtheabilityofcounseltopreparefortrial.”Id. Conversely,inUnitedStatesv.Heron ,weheldthatthedistrictcourtabuseditsdiscretionindenyingacontinuancewhereonthedaybeforetrial akeyprosecutionwitnesshadchanged hisplannedtestimonyinamannerthatportrayedthedefendantasanactive,ratherthanreluctant,participantinthetransportationofdrugs.564F.3d879,88183(7thCir.2009).Wenotedthatthedefendanthadessentiallynotimetoprepareforthechangedtestimonyanddidnotcontributetothetimepressure,andthata continuancewouldhaveallowedhimtoinvestigatethis“crucialpiece”ofnewevidence.Id. at883.IndenyingCook’srequestforacontinuance,the districtcourtfocusedontheageofthecase,Cook’sroleinshorteningtheavailabletimeforpreparation,Cook’sprevious“machinations”indelayingthecasefortrial,andtheinconvenienceapostponementwouldcausetothecourtgivenitspendingcaseload.Althoughtheseareacceptableconsiderations,see Chiappetta ,289F.3dat999;Williams ,576F.3dat389,Cookarguesthatthedistrictcourtnonethelessabuseditsdiscretionbecauseanyinconveniencetothecourtwouldhavebeenminimalwhiledenyingthecontinuancedirectlyprejudicedhisrighttotestify.Cook’sjuryreturnedguiltyverdictsatalmost5:00p.m.onMonday,sothecourtguessedcorrectlythatpostponinghistestimonyuntil thatmorningwouldhavepushedthetrialintoTuesdayanddelayedthestartofthe court’snexttrial.WhateverCookmightthinkaboutthesignificancetothecourtoflosinganotherdayfromitsschedule,thejudgehaddiscretiontoassesstheburdenonhiscaseloadalongwithanyoftheotherrelevantfactors.SeeMiller,327F.3dat601.Wehavenotedthatthe“typicalreasonstodenyacontinuancearethatthedefendantshortenedherownprep arationtimeandthatadelaywillburdenthecourt.”Williams ,576F.3dat390.Cook’sfailuretomeetwithhisattorneysduringthetwoNo.091384 Page4

dayrecessbeforehetestifiedparallelsthedefendant’sactionsinFarr,whereweupheldthedenialofacontinuanceinlightofthedefendant’s“obstinatebehavior”andconsistentrefusaltoassistinthepreparationofhisdefense.See297F.3dat656.UnlikeinHeron ,wherecircumstancesoutsidethedefendant’scontrolcreatedashortageoftimetoprepare,Cookwasatfaultfordecidingthatgoingtoworkwasmoreimportantthankeepinghisappointmentswithcounselduringthetwodays hecouldhavebeenpreparing.See564F.3dat883.Evenifacontinuancewouldhavecausedonlyminimaldelaytothedistrictcourt’spendingtrialschedule,giventheamountoftime thathadelapsedbetweentheindictmentandthetrial,thetwodayrecessduringwhichCookcouldhavepreparedtotestifyifhehadoptedtomissadayofwork,andwhatthedistrictcourtperceivedasCook’shistoryof“machinations”togamethesystem,wefindthatthe courtdidnotabuseitsdiscretioninrefusingtograntacontinuance.ThatconclusionisreinforcedbyCook’sfailuret oexplainhowdenyingtherequestedcontinuanceprejudicedhim.Cookassertsthathislackofpreparationprejudicedhisrighttotestify.Cookdidtestify,buthecontends—withoutelaboration—thatwithmorepreparationhewouldhavebeenbetterabletoanswerthegovernment’squestionsoncrossexamination,andinturnthegovernmentwouldnothavebeenabletonegativelyfocusonhistestimonyduringitsclosingargument.Inordertofindprejudicewerequireadefendanttoshowspecificallywhatmaterialdifferenceacontinuancewouldhavemade.InUnitedStatesv.Vincent ,weaffirmedthedenialofacontinuancewherethedefendantclaimedthatheneededmoretimetoexam inediscoverymaterialsandpreparetocrossexaminethegovernment’switnessesbut“n eitherpointedtoexculpatoryevidencehewouldhavefoundinthediscoverynorproposedadditionalquestionshewouldhaveaskedthegovernment’switnesses.”416F.3d593,599(7thCir.2005).Here,similarly,Cookdoesnotexplainhowhistestimonywouldhavedifferedandbenefittedhiscaseifhehadbeengrantedacontinuance.Hedoesnotspecifywhatanswershewouldhavegivenduringthegovernment’scrossexaminationifhehadadditional timetoprepareorhowthoseanswerswouldhavepositivelyaffectedthejury.UnderVincent hisunsupportedassertionofprejudiceisinsufficient.See id.Accordingly,weAFFIRMthedistrictcourt’sjudgment.