Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy Cecil BOLTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1971-03-02
Citations: 438 F.2d 1219
Docket Number: No. 30680
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy Cecil BOLTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 438
Pages: 1219–1220

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roy Cecil BOLTON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 30680
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 2, 1971.
George D. McMillan, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., (Court-appointed) for defendant-appellant.
Wayman G. Sherrer, U. S. Atty., L. Scott Atkins, Asst. U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
Rule 18, 5th Cir.; See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The sole issue in this appeal by Roy Cecil Bolton, who was convicted September 28, 1970 of transporting a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2812, is whether the trial court erred in refusing appellant's request for a continuance because of the absence of a defense witness. The granting of a continuance until an absent witness can be procured is, of course, within the sound discretion of the district court, and it is not error to deny a requested continuance in the absence of a showing of an abuse of that discretion. United States v. Pierce, 5th Cir. 1969, 411 F.2d 678; Barnes v. United States, 5th Cir. 1967, 374 F.2d 126; Samples v. United States, 5th Cir. 1941, 121 F.2d 263. We have carefully read the record and have not found an indication of that abuse of discretion that would require reversal. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.