United States v. Jones, 643 F.3d 275

Jones pled guilty to two counts of armed robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)-(d) and was sentenced to 200 months.
Prior to sentencing, Jones subpoenaed Reverend Robinson to testify on his behalf, but Robinson was not contacted until the morning of sentencing and was unavailable.
Jones requested a two-week continuance to secure the witness; the government did not object and offered to stipulate some testimony.
The district court characterized the potential testimony as character evidence and denied the continuance.
Jones appealed, arguing Rule 32(i)(4)(A)(ii) and due process protected his right to present mitigating information and witnesses; he claimed prejudice from denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the continuance.	Jones.	Court has broad discretion; continuance not required.	No abuse; discretion not abused.
Whether Rule 32(i)(4)(A)(ii) guarantees the right to present mitigation at sentencing.	Jones had a constitutional right to character witness testimony.	No constitutional right; trial-level standards apply.	No constitutional right; Rule 32 satisfied.
Whether denial of the continuance prejudiced Jones at sentencing.	Denied testimony could have reduced sentence.	Prejudice not shown; sentencing record reflects otherwise.	No prejudice established.

United States v. Lakoskey, 462 F.3d 965 (8th Cir.2006) (abuse of discretion standard for continuances; reversal only for prejudice)
United States v. Cotroneo, 89 F.3d 510 (8th Cir.1996) (continuance decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
United States v. Carr, 66 F.3d 981 (8th Cir.1995) (due process at sentencing requires material false information as basis for challenged sentence)
United States v. Atkins, 250 F.3d 1203 (8th Cir.2001) (district court wide discretion at sentencing as to information considered)