Opinion ID: 2756032
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Grant Motion

Text: If a claim of error is raised for the first time on appeal, review is for plain error. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To demonstrate plain error, an appellant must prove that an error: (1) occurred; (2) was plain; (3) affects substantial rights; and (4) “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993)). Perez-Barocela argues that the district court plainly erred in rejecting his motion to continue his sentencing. He asserts that the court should have granted the motion because, had he debriefed with the government, the government might have filed a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 motion, which, if granted, would have decreased his sentencing range. Rule 32(i)(3)(B) does not, by its terms, require a judge to grant a motion for a continuance when there is any possibility that doing so might cause the government to file a motion that, if granted, would reduce the defendant’s sentence. In fact, since this possibility always exists, such a construction would render every denied motion for a continuance plainly erroneous. Perhaps for this reason, Perez-Barocela can cite no case supporting his interpretation. Accordingly, there are no grounds upon which to find that the district court’s denial of Perez-Barocela’s motion was error, let alone plain error. Additionally, under the third prong of plain error analysis, an error “must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.” Olano, 507 12 Case: 13-40617 Document: 00512850813 Page: 13 Date Filed: 11/26/2014 No. 13-40617 U.S. at 734. Perez-Barocela, however, cannot demonstrate that he would have received a lower sentence if the court had granted his motion, because he has put forth no evidence suggesting that the government would have filed a Section 5K1.1 motion after debriefing. In fact, the existing evidence suggests the opposite. After conducting one debriefing with Perez-Barocela and determining that he had not been truthful, accepted responsibility for his actions, or provided useful information, the government determined that a second debriefing would be useless. The government did not file a Section 5K1.1 motion after the first debriefing, and the evidence suggests that it would not have done so after a second debriefing. Because we determine that no plain error affecting substantial rights occurred, the final factor of the plain-error analysis is inapplicable. The district court did not plainly err by denying Perez-Barocela’s motion for a continuance. AFFIRMED. 13