Opinion ID: 196165
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Mid-Trial Motion.

Text: 64 At the close of the government's case, appellant submitted a proffer in support of a renewed motion for a continuance. The proffer suggested a global conspiracy between the Israeli intelligence services and the CIA, and asserted that he had witnesses who would testify about such matters as the Israeli defense industry and [t]he method by which the building of Israeli religious schools is financed by Hasidic Jews in the United States who engage in money laundering. Appellant claimed that his counsel needed time to investigate the matters described in the proffer. 65 The district court found the proffer to be too vague and unsubstantiated to constitute a basis for granting a continuance because its conclusory allegations offered no explanation as to its relevancy to the case. Moreover, the court found no evidence that diligent efforts had been made to assure availability of the testimony and documents in a proper time frame. Hence, the court determined that the proffer afforded an inadequate basis for the requested continuance. 66 We discern no abuse of discretion. While the proffer weaves a tale of intrigue worthy of an Oliver Stone screenplay, we are unable to distill sufficient relevance or likelihood of success from its sinister allegations to suggest that a continuance, if granted, would have proven useful.