US v. Yastrzemski Lipscombe

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:12-cr-00024-HMH-5. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999353975]. [13-4192]

Appeal: 13-4192

Doc: 67

Filed: 05/12/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4192

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
YASTRZEMSKI LIPSCOMBE, a/k/a O,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:12-cr-00024-HMH-5)

Submitted:

April 29, 2014

Before KEENAN
Circuit Judge.

and

DIAZ,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

May 12, 2014

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

T. Micah Leddy, THE LEDDY LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States
Attorney, Andrew B. Moorman, Sr., Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4192

Doc: 67

Filed: 05/12/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Yastrzemski Lipscombe was convicted of conspiracy to
possess

with

intent

to

distribute

1000

kilograms

or

more

of

marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2012).
He was sentenced to 151 months in prison.

Lipscombe appeals,

alleging that the district court’s restriction on the scope of
cross-examination violated the Confrontation Clause.
Prior

to

trial,

the

district

court

We affirm.
ruled

that

Lipscombe could not inquire of cooperating witnesses about the
specific sentences they faced.

At trial, coconspirators Larry

Gory, Anthony Yanez, and Demeika Martin testified for the United
States.

All had previously pled guilty.

Gory testified on

direct that, although the United States did not promise in his
plea agreement that he would receive a sentence reduction in
return for his testimony, he was hoping for such a reduction.
Yanez testified that his plea agreement, which required him to
tell the truth, did not contain a promise from the United States
to move for a sentence reduction.
hoped

for

a

lenient

against Lipscombe.
he wanted his

sentence

as

However, Yanez stated that he
a

result

of

his

testimony

On cross-examination, Yanez reiterated that

sentence “to be more lenient.”

He added that he

was “facing . . . a severe mandatory minimum sentence” and that,
in addition to telling the truth, he had to provide “substantial
assistance”

in

order

to

receive
2

leniency.

Finally,

Martin

Appeal: 13-4192

Doc: 67

testified

on

Filed: 05/12/2014

direct

that,

Pg: 3 of 4

while

the

United

States

had

not

promised a reduction in his sentence, he was hoping for such a
reduction.
District
reasonable

“judges

including

limits

on

possess

wide

cross-examination,

harassment,

prejudice,

198 F.3d 425, 429 (4th Cir. 1999).
cross-examination

of

based

confusion

repetition, or marginal relevance.”

on

latitude

to
on

of

impose
concerns

the

issues,

United States v. Turner,
With respect to limitations

cooperating

witnesses,

the

relevant

issue is “whether the jury possesse[d] sufficient evidence to
enable

it

to

make

incentives

to

lie

a
on

discriminating
the

part

of

appraisal
the

of

witnesses.”

States v. Cropp, 127 F.3d 354, 359 (4th Cir. 1997).
court’s

limitation

on

a

defendant’s

bias

and

United

A district

cross-examination

prosecution witness is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

of

a

United

States v. Ramos-Cruz, 667 F.3d 487, 500 (4th Cir. 2012).
We
sufficient
incentive
Martin,

are

convinced

evidence
to

the

lie.
jury

upon

that

which

Through
learned

the

to

jury

questioning

that

they

had

of

before

witness

assess

had

bias

and

Gory,

Yanez

and

entered

into

it

plea

agreements with the United States and that they hoped to receive
more lenient sentences in return for testifying at Lipscombe’s
trial.

Precluding Lipscombe from eliciting testimony concerning

3

Appeal: 13-4192

Doc: 67

Filed: 05/12/2014

Pg: 4 of 4

the specific sentences the witnesses faced was not an abuse of
discretion.
Accordingly,
dispense

with

oral

we

affirm

argument

Lipscombe's

because

the

conviction.
facts

and

We
legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4