United States v. Joel William Bayless

26 F.3d 133 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Joel William BAYLESS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-50424. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted May 5, 1994. * Decided May 26, 1994. 1 Before: BROWNING and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and FITZGERALD,** District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM *** I. Continuance 3 The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bayless's motion for continuance of trial. 4 A continuance would have inconvenienced the court. United States v. Robinson, 967 F.2d 287, 291 (9th Cir.1992) (third continuance would inconvenience the court, the government and the witnesses). The need for a continuance arose only because of Bayless's deliberate disappearance. Bayless retained counsel in August, allowing adequate preparation time. See United States v. Bogard, 846 F.2d 563, 566 (9th Cir.1988) (appellant may not complain when trial preparation hampered because counsel of choice…