FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-10547
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00679-SRB-3
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KINGSLEY LLOYD BOWEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 20, 2012**
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Kingsley Lloyd Bowen appeals his convictions of Conspiracy to Possess
with Intent To Distribute 1,000 Kilograms or More of Marijuana (21 U.S.C. §§
846; 841(a)(1); 841(b)(1)(A)(vii)); Conspiracy to Launder Monetary Instruments
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)); Conspiracy to Destroy or Remove Property to Prevent
Seizure (18 U.S.C. § 371); and Destruction or Removal of Property to Prevent
Seizure (18 U.S.C. § 2232(a)). Because the parties are familiar with the history of
the case, we need not recount it here. We affirm the district court.
I
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bowen’s motion to
continue his sentencing hearing. A district court has “broad discretion” to grant or
deny a continuance. United States v. Kloehn, 620 F.3d 1122, 1126 (9th Cir. 2010).
Its decision “will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear abuse of that discretion.”
Id. at 1126-27 (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court did not abuse
its discretion by denying the motion for a continuance because Bowen had enough
time to analyze the error found in Exhibit 299, and he did not specifically explain
why a continuance would have been necessary given his familiarity with Exhibit
299 and the underlying shipping records. See United States v. Sarno, 73 F.3d
1470, 1493 (9th Cir. 1995) (Although “additional time can often be put to good
use,” “general allegations that a continuance would have allowed [the defendant] to
prepare a better defense . . . are insufficient to allow [the Court] to find an abuse of
discretion.”).
II
2
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to construe
Bowen’s motion for continuance as a motion for a new trial. A “motion must state
the grounds on which it is based and the relief or order sought.” FED. R. CRIM. P.
47(b). Bowen clearly requested a continuance of his sentencing, not a new trial.
Indeed, Bowen’s motion in response to the government’s Notice of Errata was
titled “Request for Continuance of Sentencing.”
AFFIRMED.
3