
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Antonio MUNIZ-BORRERO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-51248.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 12, 2008.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Christopher Allen Antcliff, Stanton & Antcliff, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Jose Antonio Muniz-Borrero (Muniz) appeals his conviction and sentence for importation of 50 kilograms or more of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute 50 kilograms or more of marijuana. Muniz’s first trial was declared a mistrial after the jury deadlocked. Muniz contends that his second trial was unfair because the district court allowed a “surprise” witness to testify on rebuttal and denied Muniz a continuance to allow the defense to prepare to counter the testimony. The district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the witness, Kahled Farhat, to testify. Farhat’s testimony was relevant because, although it was not incriminatory, it directly contradicted Mun-iz’s trial testimony. See Fed.R.Evid. 401, 402; United States v. Sanchez-Sotelo, 8 F.3d 202, 210 (5th Cir.1993) (reviewing evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion).

Although Farhat did not testify at Mun-iz’s first trial, Muniz was aware from the evidence presented at trial that Farhat could potentially impeach Muniz’s testimony; however, he chose not to interview Farhat prior to the second trial. See United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207, 217-18 (5th Cir.1990). Muniz does not identify any specific prejudice from the denial of a continuance, such as an inability to offer surrebuttal witnesses or to impeach Farhat’s testimony. See United States v. Harbin, 601 F.2d 773, 778-79 (5th Cir.1979). Thus, Muniz has failed to show that the decision not to grant a continuance prior to Farhat’s testimony was an abuse of the district court’s discretion. See United States v. Alford, 999 F.2d 818, 821 (5th Cir.1993).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     