United States v. Camilio Valenzuela-Estrada

962 F.2d 15 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Camilio VALENZUELA-ESTRADA, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-50485. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted April 8, 1992. * Decided May 4, 1992. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Judith Keep, United States District Judge, Presiding S.D.Cal. AFFIRMED. Before CANBY, REINHARDT and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 In appealing his illegal re-entry conviction, Camilio Valenzuela-Estrada contends that the district court abused its discretion by permitting the government to reopen its case. This argument is without merit. The record indicates that the district court offered Valenzuela-Estrada a continuance to overcome any procedural disadvantage caused by the reopening, but he declined the opportunity. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that an abuse of discretion occurred. See…