Michael Sillemon appeals his conviction by a jury of armed bank robbery and aiding and abetting, using and carrying a firearm during a violent crime, and conspiracy to commit those and other related crimes. He argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance.

“This court will reverse a district court’s decision denying a defendant’s motion for continuance only when the district court has abused its discretion and the defendant can establish that he suffered serious prejudice.” United States v. Scott, 48 F.3d 1389, 1393 (5th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our review of the record and briefs of the parties satisfies us that the district court’s decision was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable because Sillemon changed retained counsel shortly before trial, and he has failed to show that he suffered serious prejudice as a result of the denial. See United States v. Hughey, 147 F.3d 423, 431 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Pollani, 146 F.3d 269, 272 (5th Cir. 1998).

AFFIRMED.