Opinion ID: 746484
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Third Continuance.

Text: 54 On May 1, 1995, after twice continuing the trial originally scheduled for August 1994, the district court granted Lefkowitz a continuance of three weeks, rather than the three months he requested. Lefkowitz argues that the court erred in not granting a three-month continuance because his case was especially complex, the records were voluminous, and the denial of additional expert funding was an unforeseen hardship. We will not overturn a trial court's denial of a continuance unless the trial court clearly has abused its discretion, because continuances are not favored and should be granted only when a compelling reason has been shown. United States v. Young, 943 F.2d 24, 25 (8th Cir.1991) (quotation omitted), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 964, 112 S.Ct. 1571, 118 L.Ed.2d 216 (1992). There was no abuse of discretion in this case. The district court specifically considered the case's complexity and its unique circumstances in granting the final three-week continuance. 55