U.S. v. Sinclair

In prosecution on drug and firearm charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to continue his trial in order to obtain new counsel, where said motion was considered on day prior to start of trial. While last-minute nature of defendant’s continuance request was insufficient by itself to deny said request, Dist. Ct. properly could consider last-minute nature of request, along with fact that any continuance would have caused inconvenience to 34 jurors who were told to report for jury duty, as well as to court personnel and witnesses. Moreover, defendant failed to establish that proposed new counsel would have actually accepted case or would have been able to be prepared for trial within time frame set forth in continuance motion.