Opinion ID: 380377
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Motion for a Change of Venue or, in the Alternative, A Continuance.

Text: 41 Deggendorf claims that he was denied a fair and impartial trial by the presence of adverse pretrial publicity. 6 He appeals the trial court's denial of his motions for a change of venue or, alternatively, a continuance. We affirm on the ground that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. 42 A motion for transfer under Fed.R.Crim.P. 21(a) based upon prejudicial pretrial publicity is addressed to the sound discretion of the district court. United States v. Buttorff, 572 F.2d 619, 627 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 437 U.S. 906, 98 S.Ct. 3095, 57 L.Ed.2d 1136 (1978); United States v. Brown, 540 F.2d 364, 377 (8th Cir. 1976). Similarly, the district court has broad discretion to rule on the appropriateness of a continuance. United States v. Lankford, 573 F.2d 1051, 1054 (8th Cir. 1978) and cases cited therein. Upon reviewing the record, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in denying these motions. 43