Garrett

Opinion by Judge PREGERSON; concurrence by Judge FERNANDEZ

Defendant Floyd Lentellis Garrett appeals his convictions on two counts related to an armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a), (d), and (2); and 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c)(1) and (2). The district court denied Garrett’s motion for continuance on the eve of trial. Garrett contends that, in denying this continuance, the district court committed reversible error. A divided panel of this court reversed Garrett’s convictions. See United States v. Garrett, 149 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir.1998). We granted rehearing en banc and withdrew the panel opinion. See United States v. Garrett, 161 F.3d 583 (9th Cir.1998).

We write today to make it clear that when we review a district court’s ruling granting or denying a motion for a *1145 continuance the applicable standard of review is abuse of discretion. This standard is consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11 , 103 S.Ct. 1610 , 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983) where the Court stated that “broad discretion must be granted trial courts on matters of continuances.” The Court wrote:

Id at 11-12, 103 S.Ct. 1610 (quoting Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589…

concurring:

I agree with most of what is said in the perspicacious majority opinion. It is, therefore, with some hesitation that I write this concurrence. I do so because there has been a good deal of tension in Ninth Circuit law regarding the proper approach to cases where new counsel is sought at a time that would require a continuance of trial proceedings. See, e.g., United States v. D’Amore, 56 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir.1995) (where defendant’s motion to substitute counsel and continue a hearing was denied, we reversed because the record failed to show any “compelling purpose” for the denial); United States v. Lillie, 989 F.2d 1054, 1055-56 (9th Cir.1993) (same); United States v. Leavitt, 608 F.2d 1290, 1293-94 (9th Cir.1979) (where pro se defendant was denied a continuance to obtain counsel at the last minute, we balanced five factors and upheld the denial because the district court’s decision was fair and reasonable) (followed in, United States v. Robinson, 967 F.2d 287, 291 (9th Cir.1992) and United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 938-39 (9th Cir.1986)); United States v. Mills, 597 F.2d 693, 699-700 (9th Cir.1979) (where defendant was denied a substitution of attorney at…