United States v. Timothy Scott Ainsworth

94 F.3d 653 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Timothy Scott AINSWORTH, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-50533. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Aug. 8, 1996. Decided Aug. 16, 1996. Before: REINHARDT, HALL, AND LEAVY, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 The defendant appeals his conviction on two grounds. First, he claims that the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury that he should be acquitted of bank robbery if the jury found that he was merely an accessory after the fact. Second, he argues that the district court erred in denying his request for a continuance so that he could have more time to prepare to present exculpatory evidence at trial that the government disclosed under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). We affirm. 3 The failure to instruct the jury on an appropriate defense theory is a question of law reviewed de novo. United States v. Duran, 59 F.3d 938…