UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-5117
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
VANESSA MAY GIVENS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. (CR-
05-55)
Submitted: August 25, 2006 Decided: September 14, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Margaret A. Chamberlain, CHAMBERLAIN LAW FIRM, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, United States
Attorney, Isaac Louis Johnson, Jr., Assistant United States
Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Vanessa Givens of conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute and to distribute 500 grams or more of a
mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846 (2000); possession with intent to distribute 500 grams
or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000); and use and carry of a
firearm during and in relation to, and possession of a firearm in
furtherance of, a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18
U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006). Givens appeals her
convictions, challenging certain evidentiary rulings by the
district court. We affirm.
Givens asserts that the district court erred by ruling
that she could not cross-examine two witnesses about the length of
the sentences they received. We review a district court’s decision
to limit cross-examination of a government witness for an abuse of
discretion. See United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209, 220 (4th
Cir. 2006) (stating standard of review), petition for cert. filed,
__ U.S.L.W. __ (U.S. June 26, 2006) (No. 06-5036). Although the
district court limited Givens’ cross-examination as to the specific
penalties the witnesses received, the court allowed questioning
sufficient to demonstrate the witnesses’ potential bias. See
United States v. Cropp, 127 F.3d 354, 358-59 (4th Cir. 1997)
(finding no abuse of discretion in district court’s limitation of
- 2 -
cross-examination about specific penalties where court permitted
questioning about whether witness had signed plea agreements, faced
severe penalties absent cooperation, and expected to receive
reduced sentence after testifying). We therefore find that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting
cross-examination. See Smith, 451 F.3d at 220-21.
Givens also contends that the district court erred by
excluding a defense witness. Our review of the trial testimony
convinces us that the district court did not abuse its discretion
in excluding the witness. See United States v. Leeson, 453 F.3d
631, 636 (4th Cir. 2006) (defining relevant evidence); United
States v. Smith, 441 F.3d 254, 263 (4th Cir. 2006) (stating
standard of review), petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W. __,
(U.S. July 25, 2006) (No. 06-5859).
Accordingly, we affirm Givens’ convictions. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -