PER CURIAM.
The appellant's sole contention is that the trial judge erred in denying his mid-trial motion for a continuance. The critical facts are that the motion does not comply with F.R.Civ.P. 17(b); the purpose of the motion was to offer testimony impeaching a Government witness on an immaterial point; and, during the trial, the appellant offered no testimony. We hold that the trial court was well within sound judicial discretion in denying the motion. The judgment...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
