30680 | 5th Cir. | Mar 2, 1971
438 F.2d 1219" court="5th Cir." date_filed="1971-03-02" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-roy-cecil-bolton-295113?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="295113">438 F.2d 1219
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Roy Cecil BOLTON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 30680 Summary Calendar.*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 2, 1971.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama; Clarance W. Allgood, District Judge.
George D. McMillan, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., (Court-appointed) for defendant-appellant.
Wayman G. Sherrer, U. S. Atty., L. Scott Atkins, Asst. U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The sole issue in this appeal by Roy Cecil Bolton, who was convicted September 28, 1970 of transporting a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312, is whether the trial court erred in refusing appellant's request for a continuance because of the absence of a defense witness. The granting of a continuance until an absent witness can be procured is, of course, within the sound discretion of the district court, and it is not error to deny a requested continuance in the absence of a showing of an abuse of that discretion. United States v. Pierce, 5th Cir. 1969, 411 F.2d 678" court="5th Cir." date_filed="1969-05-20" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-flavis-c-pierce-285064?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="285064">411 F.2d 678; Barnes v. United States, 5th Cir. 1967, 374 F.2d 126" court="5th Cir." date_filed="1967-04-05" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/elton-ray-barnes-and-bunchie-white-v-united-states-275071?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="275071">374 F.2d 126; Samples v. United States, 5th Cir. 1941, 121 F.2d 263" court="5th Cir." date_filed="1941-06-25" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/samples-v-united-states-1493351?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1493351">121 F.2d 263. We have carefully read the record and have not found an indication of that abuse of discretion that would require reversal. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
Notes:
[1] Rule 18, 5th Cir.;See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409" court="3rd Cir." date_filed="1970-08-14" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/isbell-enterprises-inc-v-citizens-casualty-co-of-new-york-defendant-third-party-v-marine-mart-inc-third-party-291958?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="291958">431 F.2d 409.