United States v. James Rowe

5 F.3d 543 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. James ROWE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-50093. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 7, 1993. Decided Sept. 2, 1993. Appeal from the United States District Court, for the Central District of California, D.C. No. CR-90-0575-WWW-2; David W. Williams, Senior District Judge, Presiding. C.D.Cal. AFFIRMED. Before: KOZINSKI, SILER * and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Defendant Rowe was convicted for distribution of a substance containing cocaine base, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 841 (a)(1). He raises three errors on appeal: (1) failure of the court to have portions of the trial testimony read to the jury, upon request; (2) denial of a new trial based on a Brady violation; and (3) denial of the defendant's motion for a continuance for an independent test of the seized drugs. For the reasons stated herein, the judgment of…