NONPRECEDENTIALȱDISPOSITION Toȱbeȱcitedȱonlyȱinȱaccordanceȱwith FED.ȱR.ȱAPP.ȱP.ȱ32.1 United States Court of Appeals ForȱtheȱSeventhȱCircuit Chicago,ȱIllinoisȱ60604 ArguedȱNovemberȱ17,ȱ2009 DecidedȱNovemberȱ24,ȱ2009 Before FRANKȱH.ȱEASTERBROOK,ȱChiefȱJudge ILANAȱDIAMONDȱROVNER,ȱCircuitȱJudge DIANEȱS.ȱSYKES,ȱCircuitȱJudge No.ȱ09Ȭ1384 UNITEDȱSTATESȱOFȱAMERICA, AppealȱfromȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱDistrict PlaintiffȬAppellee, CourtȱforȱtheȱNorthernȱDistrictȱofȱIllinois, EasternȱDivision. v. No.ȱ07ȱCRȱ112Ȭ1 KEITHȱCOOK, DefendantȬAppellant. RubenȱCastillo, Judge. OȱRȱDȱEȱR OnȱtheȱsecondȬtoȬlastȱdayȱofȱKeithȱCook’sȱtrialȱforȱembezzlementȱandȱfalsifying unionȱrecords,ȱjustȱbeforeȱtheȱgovernmentȱrested,ȱCook’sȱlawyersȱinformedȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt thatȱheȱwouldȱtestifyȱbutȱtheyȱneededȱtimeȱtoȱhelpȱhimȱprepare.ȱȱCounselȱaskedȱtheȱcourtȱto adjournȱforȱtheȱday,ȱbutȱtheȱcourtȱdeniedȱthisȱrequest.ȱȱCookȱthenȱtestified,ȱandȱonȱtheȱnext dayȱofȱtrialȱwasȱfoundȱguiltyȱofȱbothȱcharges.ȱȱOnȱappealȱheȱchallengesȱtheȱdenialȱofȱhis requestȱforȱaȱcontinuance.ȱȱWeȱupholdȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt’sȱrulingȱandȱaffirmȱCook’s convictions.ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Throughȱhisȱworkȱasȱaȱrailroadȱconductor,ȱCookȱbecameȱsecretaryȬtreasurerȱofȱhis localȱtransportationȱunion.ȱȱHeȱservedȱfromȱ2002ȱuntilȱ2004,ȱwhenȱanȱauditorȱdiscovered No.ȱ09Ȭ1384 Pageȱ2 thatȱCookȱhadȱwrittenȱhimselfȱaȱnumberȱofȱunauthorizedȱchecksȱonȱunionȱaccountsȱtotaling overȱ$45,000.ȱȱFollowingȱanȱinvestigationȱtheȱgovernmentȱchargedȱCookȱwithȱembezzling theȱassetsȱofȱaȱlaborȱorganization,ȱ29ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ501(c),ȱandȱmakingȱaȱfalseȱentryȱinȱunion recordsȱrequiredȱtoȱbeȱkeptȱbyȱlaw,ȱid.ȱ§ȱ439(c).ȱȱOverȱtheȱnextȱ17ȱmonths,ȱCookȱtwice succeededȱinȱgettingȱhisȱappointedȱcounselȱreplaced—theȱsecondȱtimeȱonȱtheȱeveȱof trial—andȱtwiceȱtheȱpartiesȱreachedȱaȱpleaȱagreementȱonlyȱtoȱhaveȱCookȱchangeȱhisȱmindȱat theȱchangeȬofȬpleaȱhearing.ȱ Onceȱtrialȱbeganȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt’sȱscheduleȱrequiredȱmultipleȱbreaksȱinȱthe proceedings,ȱsoȱtheȱtrialȱranȱSeptemberȱ2Ȭ3,ȱ8Ȭ9,ȱ12,ȱandȱ15,ȱ2008.ȱȱOnȱFriday,ȱSeptemberȱ12, followingȱaȱtwoȬdayȱrecess,ȱdefenseȱcounselȱtoldȱtheȱcourtȱthatȱCookȱhadȱdecidedȱon Tuesdayȱthatȱheȱwouldȱtestify,ȱbutȱtheyȱhadȱnotȱsucceededȱinȱmeetingȱwithȱhimȱon WednesdayȱorȱThursdayȱtoȱgoȱoverȱhisȱtestimony.ȱȱCounselȱexplainedȱthatȱCook,ȱwhoȱwas onȱbond,ȱhadȱmissedȱmultipleȱappointmentsȱwithȱthemȱduringȱtheȱrecessȱbecauseȱheȱwas calledȱinȱtoȱwork,ȱandȱtrafficȱthatȱmorningȱhadȱpreventedȱhimȱfromȱarrivingȱatȱtheirȱoffice earlyȱenoughȱtoȱprepare.ȱȱInȱlightȱofȱthisȱlackȱofȱpreparation,ȱCook’sȱcounselȱmovedȱforȱa continuanceȱuntilȱMonday,ȱSeptemberȱ15.ȱȱProsecutorsȱopposedȱtheȱmotion,ȱarguingȱthat theyȱalwaysȱhadȱbelievedȱCookȱwouldȱtestifyȱandȱthatȱheȱhadȱbeenȱgivenȱadequateȱtimeȱto prepareȱgivenȱtheȱdelaysȱinȱbringingȱtheȱcaseȱtoȱtrial.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱagreedȱthatȱthereȱhadȱbeen “ampleȱopportunity”ȱtoȱprepare.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱexplainedȱthatȱtheȱcaseȱhadȱbeenȱ“problematic” toȱgetȱtoȱtrialȱevenȱthoughȱitȱwasȱnotȱcomplicated,ȱandȱonceȱtheȱtrialȱgotȱunderwayȱCook hadȱnotȱmadeȱitȱaȱpriorityȱorȱtakenȱadvantageȱofȱtheȱ“veryȱliberal”ȱschedule.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱalso notedȱthatȱitȱhadȱanotherȱcaseȱscheduledȱforȱtrialȱimmediatelyȱafterȱCook’s,ȱandȱwithȱonly oneȱjuryȱroomȱitȱcouldȱnotȱ“riskȱanyȱfurtherȱday”ȱinȱtheȱcase.ȱȱInȱlightȱofȱwhatȱtheȱcourt characterizedȱasȱCook’sȱ“machinations”ȱinȱpreventingȱtheȱtrialȱfromȱstartingȱsoonerȱandȱhis “audacityȱtoȱnotȱprepareȱandȱtoȱwantȱtoȱtestify,”ȱtheȱcourtȱdeniedȱtheȱmotion.ȱȱButȱtheȱcourt didȱrecessȱforȱanȱearlyȱandȱlongerȱlunchȱtoȱallowȱCookȱsomeȱtimeȱtoȱprepare;ȱafterȱlunch Cookȱtookȱtheȱstand.ȱȱTrialȱconcludedȱonȱMondayȱwithȱclosingȱarguments,ȱandȱtheȱjury returnedȱguiltyȱverdictsȱonȱbothȱchargesȱlateȱthatȱsameȱday.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱlaterȱsentencedȱCook toȱaȱtotalȱofȱoneȱyearȱandȱaȱdayȱinȱprison.ȱ Weȱreviewȱtheȱdenialȱofȱaȱcontinuanceȱforȱabuseȱofȱdiscretionȱandȱwillȱnotȱreverse absentȱaȱshowingȱofȱactualȱprejudice.ȱȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱMiller,ȱ327ȱF.3dȱ598,ȱ601ȱ(7thȱCir. 2003);ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱTolliver,ȱ937ȱF.2dȱ1183,ȱ1187Ȭ88ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ1991).ȱȱAȱdistrictȱcourtȱmay evaluateȱanyȱnumberȱofȱfactorsȱinȱdecidingȱwhetherȱaȱcontinuanceȱisȱjustified,ȱincludingȱthe ageȱandȱcomplexityȱofȱtheȱcase,ȱtheȱamountȱofȱtimeȱalreadyȱmadeȱavailableȱforȱpreparation andȱtheȱdefendant’sȱroleȱinȱshorteningȱtheȱeffectiveȱpreparationȱtime,ȱwhetherȱtheȱdefendant hasȱtriedȱtoȱ“game”ȱtheȱsystem,ȱtheȱavailabilityȱofȱdiscovery,ȱtheȱlikelihoodȱthatȱa continuanceȱwillȱsatisfyȱtheȱdefendant’sȱneeds,ȱwhetherȱtheȱgovernmentȱopposesȱthe No.ȱ09Ȭ1384 Pageȱ3 proposedȱcontinuance,ȱtheȱinconvenienceȱorȱhardshipȱtoȱtheȱcourtȱorȱothers,ȱandȱthe likelihoodȱthatȱdenyingȱaȱcontinuanceȱwillȱprejudiceȱtheȱdefendant.ȱȱSeeȱUnitedȱStatesȱv. Williams,ȱ576ȱF.3dȱ385,ȱ390ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2009);ȱMiller,ȱ327ȱF.3dȱatȱ601;ȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱChiappetta, 289ȱF.3dȱ995,ȱ999ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2002).ȱȱTheȱimportanceȱofȱanyȱsingleȱfactorȱdependsȱonȱthe individualȱcircumstancesȱofȱaȱcase,ȱandȱassigningȱtheȱrelativeȱweightȱofȱtheȱfactorsȱisȱbest leftȱtoȱtheȱdiscretionȱofȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt.ȱȱWilliams,ȱ576ȱF.3dȱatȱ389;ȱMiller,ȱ327ȱF.3dȱatȱ601.ȱȱ Twoȱcasesȱwithȱoppositeȱoutcomesȱhelpȱtoȱillustrateȱtheȱapplicationȱofȱtheseȱfactors.ȱ InȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱFarr,ȱweȱheldȱthatȱtheȱtrialȱjudgeȱdidȱnotȱabuseȱhisȱdiscretionȱinȱdenying theȱdefendant’sȱrequestȱforȱaȱcontinuanceȱmadeȱonȱtheȱmorningȱofȱtrial.ȱȱ297ȱF.3dȱ651ȱ(7th Cir.ȱ2002).ȱȱWeȱreasonedȱthatȱtheȱdenialȱwasȱproperȱbecauseȱtheȱdefendantȱhadȱbeenȱgranted twoȱcontinuancesȱalreadyȱandȱcounsel’sȱlackȱofȱpreparationȱforȱtrialȱclearlyȱresultedȱfrom theȱdefendant’sȱconsistentȱrefusalȱtoȱcooperateȱwithȱhisȱattorneyȱandȱassistȱinȱthe preparationȱofȱhisȱdefense.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ656.ȱȱWeȱconcludedȱthatȱweȱwouldȱnotȱfindȱerrorȱinȱthe denialȱofȱaȱcontinuanceȱ“[w]hereȱaȱdefendant’sȱobstinateȱbehaviorȱplayedȱaȱsignificantȱpart inȱunderminingȱtheȱabilityȱofȱcounselȱtoȱprepareȱforȱtrial.”ȱȱId.ȱȱConversely,ȱinȱUnitedȱStates v.ȱHeron,ȱweȱheldȱthatȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱabusedȱitsȱdiscretionȱinȱdenyingȱaȱcontinuance whereȱonȱtheȱdayȱbeforeȱtrialȱaȱkeyȱprosecutionȱwitnessȱhadȱchangedȱhisȱplannedȱtestimony inȱaȱmannerȱthatȱportrayedȱtheȱdefendantȱasȱanȱactive,ȱratherȱthanȱreluctant,ȱparticipantȱin theȱtransportationȱofȱdrugs.ȱȱ564ȱF.3dȱ879,ȱ881Ȭ83ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2009).ȱȱWeȱnotedȱthatȱthe defendantȱhadȱessentiallyȱnoȱtimeȱtoȱprepareȱforȱtheȱchangedȱtestimonyȱandȱdidȱnot contributeȱtoȱtheȱtimeȱpressure,ȱandȱthatȱaȱcontinuanceȱwouldȱhaveȱallowedȱhimȱto investigateȱthisȱ“crucialȱpiece”ȱofȱnewȱevidence.ȱȱId.ȱatȱ883.ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ InȱdenyingȱCook’sȱrequestȱforȱaȱcontinuance,ȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱfocusedȱonȱtheȱageȱof theȱcase,ȱCook’sȱroleȱinȱshorteningȱtheȱavailableȱtimeȱforȱpreparation,ȱCook’sȱprevious “machinations”ȱinȱdelayingȱtheȱcaseȱforȱtrial,ȱandȱtheȱinconvenienceȱaȱpostponementȱwould causeȱtoȱtheȱcourtȱgivenȱitsȱpendingȱcaseȱload.ȱȱAlthoughȱtheseȱareȱacceptable considerations,ȱseeȱChiappetta,ȱ289ȱF.3dȱatȱ999;ȱWilliams,ȱ576ȱF.3dȱatȱ389,ȱCookȱarguesȱthatȱthe districtȱcourtȱnonethelessȱabusedȱitsȱdiscretionȱbecauseȱanyȱinconvenienceȱtoȱtheȱcourt wouldȱhaveȱbeenȱminimalȱwhileȱdenyingȱtheȱcontinuanceȱdirectlyȱprejudicedȱhisȱrightȱto testify.ȱȱCook’sȱjuryȱreturnedȱguiltyȱverdictsȱatȱalmostȱ5:00ȱp.m.ȱonȱMonday,ȱsoȱtheȱcourt guessedȱcorrectlyȱthatȱpostponingȱhisȱtestimonyȱuntilȱthatȱmorningȱwouldȱhaveȱpushedȱthe trialȱintoȱTuesdayȱandȱdelayedȱtheȱstartȱofȱtheȱcourt’sȱnextȱtrial.ȱȱWhateverȱCookȱmightȱthink aboutȱtheȱsignificanceȱtoȱtheȱcourtȱofȱlosingȱanotherȱdayȱfromȱitsȱschedule,ȱtheȱjudgeȱhad discretionȱtoȱassessȱtheȱburdenȱonȱhisȱcaseȱloadȱalongȱwithȱanyȱofȱtheȱotherȱrelevantȱfactors.ȱ SeeȱMiller,ȱ327ȱF.3dȱatȱ601.ȱȱWeȱhaveȱnotedȱthatȱtheȱ“typicalȱreasonsȱtoȱdenyȱaȱcontinuance areȱthatȱtheȱdefendantȱshortenedȱherȱownȱpreparationȱtimeȱandȱthatȱaȱdelayȱwillȱburdenȱthe court.”ȱȱWilliams,ȱ576ȱF.3dȱatȱ390.ȱȱCook’sȱfailureȱtoȱmeetȱwithȱhisȱattorneysȱduringȱtheȱtwoȬ No.ȱ09Ȭ1384 Pageȱ4 dayȱrecessȱbeforeȱheȱtestifiedȱparallelsȱtheȱdefendant’sȱactionsȱinȱFarr,ȱwhereȱweȱupheldȱthe denialȱofȱaȱcontinuanceȱinȱlightȱofȱtheȱdefendant’sȱ“obstinateȱbehavior”ȱandȱconsistent refusalȱtoȱassistȱinȱtheȱpreparationȱofȱhisȱdefense.ȱȱSeeȱ297ȱF.3dȱatȱ656.ȱȱUnlikeȱinȱHeron, whereȱcircumstancesȱoutsideȱtheȱdefendant’sȱcontrolȱcreatedȱaȱshortageȱofȱtimeȱtoȱprepare, Cookȱwasȱatȱfaultȱforȱdecidingȱthatȱgoingȱtoȱworkȱwasȱmoreȱimportantȱthanȱkeepingȱhis appointmentsȱwithȱcounselȱduringȱtheȱtwoȱdaysȱheȱcouldȱhaveȱbeenȱpreparing.ȱȱSeeȱ564ȱF.3d atȱ883.ȱȱEvenȱifȱaȱcontinuanceȱwouldȱhaveȱcausedȱonlyȱminimalȱdelayȱtoȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt’s pendingȱtrialȱschedule,ȱgivenȱtheȱamountȱofȱtimeȱthatȱhadȱelapsedȱbetweenȱtheȱindictment andȱtheȱtrial,ȱtheȱtwoȬdayȱrecessȱduringȱwhichȱCookȱcouldȱhaveȱpreparedȱtoȱtestifyȱifȱheȱhad optedȱtoȱmissȱaȱdayȱofȱwork,ȱandȱwhatȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱperceivedȱasȱCook’sȱhistoryȱof “machinations”ȱtoȱgameȱtheȱsystem,ȱweȱfindȱthatȱtheȱcourtȱdidȱnotȱabuseȱitsȱdiscretionȱin refusingȱtoȱgrantȱaȱcontinuance.ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ThatȱconclusionȱisȱreinforcedȱbyȱCook’sȱfailureȱtoȱexplainȱhowȱdenyingȱtheȱrequested continuanceȱprejudicedȱhim.ȱȱCookȱassertsȱthatȱhisȱlackȱofȱpreparationȱprejudicedȱhisȱright toȱtestify.ȱȱCookȱdidȱtestify,ȱbutȱheȱcontends—withoutȱelaboration—thatȱwithȱmore preparationȱheȱwouldȱhaveȱbeenȱbetterȱableȱtoȱanswerȱtheȱgovernment’sȱquestionsȱonȱcrossȬ examination,ȱandȱinȱturnȱtheȱgovernmentȱwouldȱnotȱhaveȱbeenȱableȱtoȱnegativelyȱfocusȱon hisȱtestimonyȱduringȱitsȱclosingȱargument.ȱȱInȱorderȱtoȱfindȱprejudiceȱweȱrequireȱa defendantȱtoȱshowȱspecificallyȱwhatȱmaterialȱdifferenceȱaȱcontinuanceȱwouldȱhaveȱmade.ȱ InȱUnitedȱStatesȱv.ȱVincent,ȱweȱaffirmedȱtheȱdenialȱofȱaȱcontinuanceȱwhereȱtheȱdefendant claimedȱthatȱheȱneededȱmoreȱtimeȱtoȱexamineȱdiscoveryȱmaterialsȱandȱprepareȱtoȱcrossȬ examineȱtheȱgovernment’sȱwitnessesȱbutȱ“neitherȱpointedȱtoȱexculpatoryȱevidenceȱheȱwould haveȱfoundȱinȱtheȱdiscoveryȱnorȱproposedȱadditionalȱquestionsȱheȱwouldȱhaveȱaskedȱthe government’sȱwitnesses.”ȱȱ416ȱF.3dȱ593,ȱ599ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2005).ȱȱHere,ȱsimilarly,ȱCookȱdoesȱnot explainȱhowȱhisȱtestimonyȱwouldȱhaveȱdifferedȱandȱbenefittedȱhisȱcaseȱifȱheȱhadȱbeen grantedȱaȱcontinuance.ȱȱHeȱdoesȱnotȱspecifyȱwhatȱanswersȱheȱwouldȱhaveȱgivenȱduringȱthe government’sȱcrossȬexaminationȱifȱheȱhadȱadditionalȱtimeȱtoȱprepareȱorȱhowȱthoseȱanswers wouldȱhaveȱpositivelyȱaffectedȱtheȱjury.ȱȱUnderȱVincentȱhisȱunsupportedȱassertionȱof prejudiceȱisȱinsufficient.ȱȱSeeȱid.ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ Accordingly,ȱweȱAFFIRMȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt’sȱjudgment.ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ