US v. James Pressley

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:12-cr-00284-F-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999879391]. [15-4439]

Appeal: 15-4439

Doc: 37

Filed: 07/06/2016

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4439

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAMES ROGREIQUAS PRESSLEY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:12-cr-00284-F-1)

Submitted:

May 26, 2016

Decided:

July 6, 2016

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elisa Cyre Salmon, SALMON & GILMORE, LLP, Lillington, North
Carolina, for Appellant.
John Stuart Bruce, Acting United
States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Barbara D. Kocher,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4439

Doc: 37

Filed: 07/06/2016

Pg: 2 of 6

PER CURIAM:
A

federal

several

jury

charges

convicted

related

laundering conspiracy.

to

James
a

Rogreiquas

drug

Pressley

conspiracy

and

of

money

The district court sentenced Pressley to

life imprisonment and he now appeals.

For the reasons that

follow, we affirm.
On

appeal,

Pressley

challenges

the

district

court’s

investigation into an allegation of juror misconduct.

During

the trial, defense counsel reported that a witness allegedly
overheard

two

Government’s

jurors

case

commenting

during

a

lunch

on

the

break.

strength
The

of

district

the
court

questioned the jury as a whole and no juror admitted to having
discussed the case during the break.

Pressley argues that the

court failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into the alleged
misconduct.
The

Sixth

Amendment

guarantees

a

criminal

right to a trial by an impartial jury.
F.3d 229, 240 (4th Cir. 2014).
arrives

at

its

verdict

based

influence

the

Barnes v. Joyner, 751

“An impartial jury is one that
upon

the

trial and without external influences.”
marks omitted).

defendant

evidence

developed

at

Id. (internal quotation

Alleged juror misconduct that results from an

internal

to

the

jury

and

does

not

involve

consideration of information not admitted into evidence, is less
concerning than that which results from an external influence.
2

Appeal: 15-4439

Doc: 37

Filed: 07/06/2016

Pg: 3 of 6

See Robinson v. Polk, 438 F.3d 350, 361-62 (4th Cir. 2006).

We

have reviewed the record and the relevant legal authorities and
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
its handling of the allegation of juror misconduct.

See United

States v. Duncan, 598 F.2d 839, 866 (4th Cir. 1979) (reviewing
claim of juror misconduct based on external influence for abuse
of discretion).
Pressley

next

argues

that

the

district

court

improperly

limited the scope of his cross-examination of a coconspirator by
refusing

to

allow

Pressley

to

inquire

into

the

sentence

the

coconspirator received for the charges related to the current
conspiracies.
court’s

“We

limitations

review
on

prosecution witness.”

a

for

abuse

defendant’s

of

discretion

a

cross-examination

trial
of

a

United States v. Ramos-Cruz, 667 F.3d.

487, 500 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).

A

district court abuses its discretion by basing its decision on
clearly erroneous findings of fact or by misapprehending the
law.

United States v. Zayyad, 741 F.3d 452, 458 (4th Cir.

2014).

A district court has wide latitude in imposing limits on

the cross-examination of a witness, and may impose such limits
to

avoid

repetition,

harassment,
or

marginal

prejudice,
relevance.

confusion
Id.

at

of

the

459.

issues,
We

again

conclude based on our review of the evidence that the district
court

committed

no

abuse

of

discretion
3

in

limiting

defense

Appeal: 15-4439

Doc: 37

Filed: 07/06/2016

Pg: 4 of 6

counsel’s cross-examination in this regard.

See United States

v.

1997)

Cropp,

127

F.3d

354,

358

(4th

Cir.

(presenting

information regarding possible sentence defendant faces to the
jury is prejudicial).
Pressley also challenges the district court’s calculation
of the drug weight, asserting that the court failed to determine
the

reliability

attributed

to

calculations

of

some

Pressley.
under

the

of

the

In

sources

reviewing

Guidelines,

of
the

“we

the

drug

amounts

district

court’s

review

the

district

court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for
clear error.”

United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th

Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We will “find

clear error only if, on the entire evidence, we are left with
the

definite

committed.”

and

firm

conviction

that

a

mistake

has

been

Manigan, 592 F.3d at 631 (internal quotation marks

and alterations omitted).
The

district

attributable
evidence.
2011).

to

court
the

need

only

defendant

by

find
a

the

drug

preponderance

quantity
of

the

United States v. Bell, 667 F.3d 431, 441 (4th Cir.

The court, therefore, “must only determine that it was

more likely than not that the defendant was responsible for at
least the drug quantity attributed to him.”
Kiulin,

360

original).

F.3d

456,

461

(4th

Cir.

United States v.

2004)

(emphasis

in

Having reviewed the record on appeal, we conclude
4

Appeal: 15-4439

that

Doc: 37

the

Filed: 07/06/2016

district

court

Pg: 5 of 6

did

not

abuse

its

discretion

in

calculating the drug weight or in explaining that calculation.
Finally,

Pressley

argues

that

the

sentence

procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
that

the

district

court

failed

to

is

both

Pressley contends

adequately

explain

the

sentence and failed to sufficiently respond to his arguments for
a

variant

sentence

sentence.

is

Pressley

substantively

also

unreasonable

asserts
based

that
on

the

the

life

factors

Pressley identified at the sentencing hearing.
We review a sentence for abuse of discretion, determining
whether

the

reasonable.
2009).

sentence

is

procedurally

and

substantively

United States v. Heath, 559 F.3d 263, 266 (4th Cir.

In

so

doing,

we

first

examine

the

sentence

for

“significant procedural error,” including “failing to calculate
(or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the
Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.]
§ 3553(a)

[(2012)]

factors,

selecting

a

sentence

based

on

clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the
chosen

sentence”.

(2007).

Gall

v.

United

States,

552

U.S.

38,

51

We then review the substantive reasonableness of the

sentence, presuming that a sentence within a properly calculated
advisory

Guidelines

range

is

reasonable.

United

States

v.

Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see Rita v. United

5

Appeal: 15-4439

Doc: 37

Filed: 07/06/2016

Pg: 6 of 6

States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-56 (2007) (upholding presumption of
reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence).
In sentencing a defendant, the district court is required
to

conduct

parties’

an

individualized

nonfrivolous

assessment

arguments

for

a

and

consider

the

outside

the

sentence

advisory Guidelines range.

United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d

325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).

Here, we conclude that the court

sufficiently

sentence.

explained

the

In

addition,

as

the

sentence is within the advisory Guidelines range, we apply a
presumption

that

the

sentence

is

substantively

reasonable;

Pressley has failed to overcome that presumption.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

6