United States v. Quelyory A. Rigal ( 2016 )

Case: 13-14841 Date Filed: 02/03/2016 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-14841
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cr-60088-WJZ-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
QUELYORY A. RIGAL,
a.k.a. Kelly,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(February 3, 2016)
Before WILSON, JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges, and HALL, ∗ District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
∗
Honorable James R. Hall, United States District Judge for the Southern District of
Georgia, sitting by designation.
Case: 13-14841 Date Filed: 02/03/2016 Page: 2 of 3
Defendant Quelyory Rigal appeals her convictions and resulting sentence for
conspiracy, wire fraud and mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and
1349. On appeal, Rigal contends that the district court (1) erroneously admitted
various pieces of evidence, leading to reversible cumulative error, and (2) erred in
calculating actual loss and restitution in arriving at her sentence. After review of
the parties’ briefs and having had the benefit of oral argument, we find no
reversible error.
First, Rigal argues that a host of errors at trial created a cumulative effect
sufficient to preclude a fair trial, which warrants reversal. An aggregation of
nonreversible errors can amount to reversible cumulative error, see United States v.
Hesser, 800 F.3d 1310, 1329–30 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam), but overwhelming
evidence of guilt may render cumulative error harmless, see United States v. Baker,
432 F.3d 1189, 1225 (11th Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds by Davis v.
Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 821, 126 S. Ct. 2266, 2273 (2006). Rigal asserts the
trial judge erroneously allowed into evidence co-defendant Edward Mena’s plea
colloquy, a stipulated statement of facts in his case, and objections to his
Presentence Investigation Report. Although we are concerned about the admission
of these documents, their admission does not warrant reversal of Rigal’s
convictions in light of the overwhelming evidence of her guilt.
2
Case: 13-14841 Date Filed: 02/03/2016 Page: 3 of 3
Second, Rigal argues that the district court erred in calculating the amount of
actual loss and the restitution owed. We find these arguments lack merit, and the
district court committed no reversible error in determining her sentence.
Therefore, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3