United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. William Clifford Smith, Defendant-appellant, 81 F.3d 171 (9th Cir. 1996)

MEMORANDUM^* 

We held in United States v. Hanna, 55 F.3d 1456, 1462 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1995), that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1) is constitutional, notwithstanding United States v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995). It also isn't vague in any way. We don't consider whether the government had to or did prove that Smith knew the gun had travelled between states, since he doesn't appeal sufficiency of the evidence. As in United States v. Beltran-Rios, 878 F.2d 1208, 1214 (9th Cir. 1989), the necessity instruction wasn't error. Finally, Smith doesn't show how two more weeks would have done what a year hadn't, so we don't consider whether denying him a continuance was error. See United States v. Tham, 960 F.2d 1391, 1396 (9th Cir. 1992) (denial of continuance harmless absent prejudice).

AFFIRMED.