Jose Sanchez appeals from his 135-month sentence, imposed at the low end of the guideline range after he pleaded guilty to attempting to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 1 kilogram or more of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § § 841(a)(1) and 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. He presents two issues:

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Sanchez’s motion to continue sentencing to allow him to pursue potential exculpatory material covered by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.[2d] 104 (1972).

2. Whether Sanchez’s guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because it was entered into without knowledge of potential Brady and Giglio material.

A review of the record shows that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sanchez’s motion to continue sentencing (filed to investigate potential, but speculative, exculpatory Brady and Giglio material): Sanchez had admitted to the facts underlying the offense, including the *831 essential elements, when he pleaded guilty. We see no specific substantial prejudice. The record also shows that Sanchez’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The plea complied with the requirements of Rule 11.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.