US v. James Pressley, No. 15-4439 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4439 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. JAMES ROGREIQUAS PRESSLEY, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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 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 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 that the district court 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 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
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.
