Roe

MEMORANDUM **

Thomas F. White appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a continuance and its order enforcing the terms of the settlement agreement. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the history of this case, we will not recount it here.

I

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance. Citicorp Real Estate, Inc. v. Smith, 155 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir.1998) (stating standard of review). To decide whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a continuance, we consider four factors: (1) the diligence of the moving party; (2) the potential usefulness of a continuance; (3) any inconvenience to the court or other parties; and (4) any prejudice wrought by the denial. See United States v. 2.61 *734 Acres of Land, More or Less, 791 F.2d 666 , 670 (9th Cir.1986).

Here, White’s substitution of allegedly unprepared new counsel on the morning of the hearing without explanation was less than diligent. Further, because he had ample opportunity to raise his objections both before and after August 29, he suffered no prejudice. Under our very deferential standard of review, with at least two of the four factors weighing…