Parra

MEMORANDUM *

Pedro Parra and Marco Enriquez-Hermosillo appeal their convictions for conspiracy to possess and possession of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute *990 it. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 , 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

I

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the petitioners’ request for a continuance because the denial did not prejudice them. 1 See United States v. Mejia, 69 F.3d 309, 314-15 (9th Cir.1995). The appellants sought the continuance to establish, through the phone records of Pulido, Gapo, and Parra, that Gapo entrapped Parra. The phone records of Gapo and Parra were available to the defense prior to trial, and the defense made use of them at trial. See United States v. Zamorar-Hernandez, 222 F.3d 1046, 1049-50 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that defendant was not prejudiced by denial of a continuance when transcript he sought was ultimately available to impeach the government’s witness at trial). Even if it is assumed that Pulido’s phone records were not available to the defendants at trial, 2 Gapo’s phone records were sufficient to impeach both Gapo’s and Pulido’s statements that Gapo’s…