Is denial of a motion for continuance an abuse of power?

Whether the denial of a motion for continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Armant v. Marquez, 772 F.2d 552, 556 (9^th Cir. 1985); United States v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1352, 1358 (9^th Cir. 1985). A reviewing court must determine whether denial of the motion was arbitrary or unreasonable based on four factors: (1) the appellant's degree of diligence before he sought the continuance; (2) the utility of granting the continuance; (3) the inconvenience that granting the continuance would cause for the court or the government; and (4) the amount of prejudice to be the appellant if the continuance was denied. Id. "At a minimum . . . in order to succeed the appellant must show some prejudice resulting from the court's denial." Armant, 772 F.2d at 556-57. "None of the first three factors is ordinarily dispositive. The defendant must, however, establish the fourthprejudice." United States v. Rivera-Guerrero, 426 F.3d 1130, 1139 (9^th Cir. 2005).