Opinion ID: 577995
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Motions to Continue and for Reconsideration

Text: 14 We look to four factors in deciding whether a trial court abused its discretion in denying a continuance: (1) the movant's diligence in readying his case for trial; (2) the likelihood that the grant of a continuance would have satisfied the need therefor; (3) inconvenience to court, parties, and witnesses; and (4) the extent of harm to the movant resulting from the denial of his motion. United States v. 2.61 Acres of Land, 791 F.2d 666, 671 (9th Cir.1986) (as amended). Here, Taxpayer conceded in his motion for a continuance that the case had been at issue since June 28, 1989 (i.e., nearly eight months prior to the trial date); his counsel neither renewed the motion at trial, nor argued that he was unprepared for trial; and Taxpayer has made no showing of any actual prejudice resulting from the unusually swift setting of trial. See United States v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1352, 1359 (9th Cir.), as amended, 764 F.2d 675 (1985). The Tax Court did not err in denying the motion.
15 Taxpayer's final argument boils down to a difference of opinion over the correct reading of Abraham Krantz's testimony regarding his conversations with Taxpayer and/or Roger Strumm. We find no error in the Tax Court's treatment of this question, nor any abuse of discretion in its ruling, either. 16 We find no merit in any of Taxpayer's remaining arguments. Accordingly, the decision of the Tax Court is 17 AFFIRMED.