US v. Yastrzemski Lipscombe, No. 13-4192 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4192 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. YASTRZEMSKI LIPSCOMBE, a/k/a O, Defendant -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 and DIAZ, Decided: Circuit Judges, and May 12, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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. ยงยง 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 testified on direct that, 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 impose on the of concerns 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 incentive Martin, convinced evidence sufficient are upon to the lie. jury that which Through learned the to jury questioning that they had of before it witness assess had bias and Gory, Yanez and entered into 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 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
