UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 jury convicted James Rogreiquas Pressley of
several charges related to a drug conspiracy and money
laundering conspiracy. 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 jurors commenting on the strength of the
Government’s case during a lunch break. The district 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 defendant the
right to a trial by an impartial jury. Barnes v. Joyner, 751
F.3d 229, 240 (4th Cir. 2014). “An impartial jury is one that
arrives at its verdict based upon the evidence developed at
trial and without external influences.” Id. (internal quotation
marks omitted). Alleged juror misconduct that results from an
influence 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. “We review for abuse of discretion a trial
court’s limitations on a defendant’s cross-examination of a
prosecution witness.” 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 harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues,
repetition, or marginal relevance. Id. at 459. We again
conclude based on our review of the evidence that the district
court committed no abuse of discretion in limiting defense
3
counsel’s cross-examination in this regard. See United States
v. Cropp, 127 F.3d 354, 358 (4th Cir. 1997) (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 of some of the sources of the drug amounts
attributed to Pressley. In reviewing the district court’s
calculations under the Guidelines, “we 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 and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.” Manigan, 592 F.3d at 631 (internal quotation marks
and alterations omitted).
The district court need only find the drug quantity
attributable to the defendant by a preponderance of the
evidence. United States v. Bell, 667 F.3d 431, 441 (4th Cir.
2011). 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.” United States v.
Kiulin, 360 F.3d 456, 461 (4th Cir. 2004) (emphasis in
original). 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 is both
procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Pressley contends
that the district court failed to adequately explain the
sentence and failed to sufficiently respond to his arguments for
a variant sentence. Pressley also asserts that the life
sentence is substantively unreasonable based on the factors
Pressley identified at the sentencing hearing.
We review a sentence for abuse of discretion, determining
whether the sentence is procedurally and substantively
reasonable. United States v. Heath, 559 F.3d 263, 266 (4th Cir.
2009). 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”. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). 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 an individualized assessment and consider the
parties’ nonfrivolous arguments for a sentence outside the
advisory Guidelines range. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d
325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). Here, we conclude that the court
sufficiently explained the sentence. 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 with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
6