UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-5116

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

HARVEY D. THOMAS, III,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief

District Judge. (3:10-cr-00069-JRS-1)

Submitted: May 16, 2011 Decided: May 23, 2011

Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David R. Lett, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. 

MacBride, United States Attorney, Jessica Aber Brumberg, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Harvey D. Thomas, III challenges his 

conviction for distribution of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(a)(1) (2006).*

We review a district court’s rulings on leading 

questions for a clear abuse of discretion and will not overturn 

such decisions absent prejudice or clear injustice to the 

litigant. 

 He raises two arguments on appeal. First, 

he maintains the district court abused its discretion when it 

allowed the Government to use leading questions on direct 

examination. Second, he contends that, absent the testimony 

wrongly elicited by its leading questions, the Government 

adduced insufficient evidence at trial to support his 

conviction. For the following reasons, we affirm the district 

court’s judgment.

United States v. Durham,

 * Although Thomas’ statement of the issues references the 

sufficiency of the evidence to “sustain convictions for all six 

alleged distribution offenses,” the argument in his brief only 

discusses the September 9, 2009, controlled buy. Accordingly, 

we conclude he abandoned any argument related to the sufficiency 

of the evidence supporting his other five convictions. See

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9)(A).

319 F.2d 590, 592 (4th Cir. 

1963). Federal Rule of Evidence 611(a) gives broad discretion 

to the district court to control the “mode and order” of 

interrogating witnesses and the presentation of evidence. 

Subsection (c) of Rule 611 states that leading questions should 
3

not be used on direct examination except as necessary to develop 

the witness’ testimony. See

Given the high degree of deference this court must 

allow a district court under Fed. R. Evid. 611, we conclude 

Thomas has failed to demonstrate reversible error in the 

district court’s evidentiary rulings. Given this conclusion, it 

follows that Thomas’ challenge to the sufficiency of the 

evidence supporting his conviction fails.

Fed. R. Evid. 611(c). The Advisory 

Committee Notes to subsection (c) give great deference to the 

trial judge: “The matter clearly falls within the area of 

control by the judge over the mode and order of interrogation 

and presentation and accordingly is phrased in words of 

suggestion rather than command.”

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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED