U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 1999

United States v. Ronald Josey

United States v. Ronald Josey
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided July 9, 1999

United States v. Ronald Josey

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-4881

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus

RONALD W. JOSEY, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-98-31)

Submitted: June 8, 1999 Decided: July 9, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Arthur Webb, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M.

Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Dennis M. Duffy, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Ronald Josey appeals his conviction for driving on Cape Hatteras National Seashore under the influence of alcohol. See 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a)(1) (1998). Josey argues on appeal that the dis- trict court abused its discretion when it admitted into evidence the results of three preliminary breath tests conducted shortly after a National Park Service Ranger stopped him. After reviewing the briefs and appendix in this case we conclude that even if the district court abused its discretion by admitting these test results, the error was harmless. The strength of the remaining evidence against Josey permits us to say with fair assurance that the lower court’s judgment was not substantially swayed by the challenged preliminary breath test results. See United States v. Brooks, 111 F.3d 365, 371 (4th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we affirm Josey’s conviction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.