Unpublished Disposition, 867 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1989)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 867 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1989)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Michael MARINE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 87-1283.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted*  Jan. 9, 1989.Decided Jan. 23, 1989.

Before SKOPIL, FARRIS and CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Michael Marine's appeal of his convictions for attempt to manufacture methamphetamine (two counts) and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute (one count) required us to review the record from the initial stop through sentencing. We have done so. The record satisfies us that there is no merit to the assignments of error.

We review de novo the district court's conclusion that detention was lawful. See United States v. Kerr, 817 F.2d 1384, 1386 (9th Cir. 1987). The officers' reasonable suspicion that Marine was the fugitive Randy Rhodes justified the initial brief investigatory stop of Marine's vehicle. See United States v. Corral-Villavicencio, 753 F.2d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 1985).

A pretrial motion to sever must be renewed at the close of evidence to preserve the issue for appeal. See United States v. Loya, 807 F.2d 1483, 1494 (9th Cir. 1987).

Marine's sentence was well within the statutory maximum. See United States v. Hall, 778 F.2d 1427, 1428 (9th Cir. 1985). Marine did not and cannot bring his case within one of the very limited exceptions to the general rule.

The evidence was sufficient to support conviction. Marine did not and cannot show that no rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Larm, 824 F.2d 780, 782 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 108 S. Ct. 1057 (1988).

Finally, Marine contends the district court abused its discretion in refusing to grant his motion for a continuance to investigate a new government witness. A district court's decision denying a continuance will not be disturbed on appeal unless the decision was a "clear abuse of discretion." United States v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1352, 1358 (9th Cir. 1985). The district court was within its broad discretion in denying Marine's motion for a continuance.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit rule 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Circuit Rule 36-3