US v. Ronnie D. Rainey
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:10-cr-00199-D-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [15-4758]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
RONNIE D. RAINEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:10-cr-00199-D-1)
October 20, 2016
December 15, 2016
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Deborrah L. Newton, NEWTON LAW, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
Ronnie D. Rainey pled guilty to one count of mail fraud and
was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment in May 2011.
Court affirmed his appeal.
See United States v. Rainey, 480 F.
App’x 215 (4th Cir. 2012).
In 2015, the district court granted
hearing, and found that Rainey owed $2,268,937.97 in restitution
Rainey appeals from the amended criminal judgment.
Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds for
committed reversible error by ordering restitution to victims in
an amended judgment after a hearing.
As noted by appellate counsel, our review for errors by the
district court in ordering restitution is for plain error only,
as Rainey raised no objections to the amounts of restitution in
the hearing below.
See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) (applying plain
attention”); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)
Pg: 3 of 4
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
The district court was allowed to rule on
Rainey’s restitution despite the passage of time, see United
States v. Dolan, 560 U.S. 605, 609-11 (2010) (missing 90-day
deadline in Mandatory Victim Restitution Act does not deprive a
properly declined to treat the restitution hearing as a full
See Sprague v. Ticonic, 307 U.S. 161,
courts, with limited exceptions, from considering questions that
the mandate of a higher court has laid to rest); United States
v. Aramony, 166 F.3d 655, 661 (4th Cir. 1999) (discussing law of
restitution as reflected in his amended criminal judgment.
court requires that counsel inform Rainey, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
If Rainey requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,
then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Rainey.
Pg: 4 of 4
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?