UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4885
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALAN L. MORGAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-02-254)
Submitted: March 29, 2004 Decided: April 16, 2004
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram,
Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Robert
M. Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Alan L. Morgan pled guilty to four counts of mail fraud
and one count of use of a false social security number. He was
sentenced to sixteen months’ imprisonment. On appeal, he maintains
that the district court abused its discretion in denying his
request for a third continuance of his sentencing hearing.
A district court’s refusal to grant a continuance in a
sentencing hearing is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Morris v.
Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1983); United States v. Speed, 53 F.3d
643, 644 (4th Cir. 1995). An abuse of discretion in this context
is “an unreasoning and arbitrary ‘insistence upon expeditiousness
in the face of a justifiable request for delay.’” United States v.
LaRouche, 896 F.2d 815, 823 (4th Cir. 1990) (quoting Morris, 461
U.S. at 11-12). Whether the district court abused its discretion
“in denying a continuance is not mechanical; it depends mainly on
the reasons presented to the district court at the time the request
was denied.” Id. To prevail on such a charge, the defendant must
show that the denial was arbitrary and that it substantially
impaired the defendant’s opportunity to secure a fair sentence.
Speed, 53 F.3d at 644. In other words, a defendant “must
demonstrate substantial impairment of his opportunity to secure a
fair trial.” United States v. Hampton, No. 97-4525, 155 F.3d 562,
1998 WL 453848, at *2 (4th Cir. July 24, 1998)(L) (unpublished).
- 2 -
We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to
deny Morgan’s motion. Accordingly, we affirm Morgan’s sentence.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -