US v. Ronnie D. Rainey

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:10-cr-00199-D-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999987503].. [15-4758]

Appeal: 15-4758

Doc: 33

Filed: 12/15/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4758

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
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)

Submitted:

October 20, 2016

Before GREGORY,
Judges.

Chief

Judge,

Decided:

and

DUNCAN

December 15, 2016

and

DIAZ,

Circuit

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Deborrah L. Newton, NEWTON LAW, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4758

Doc: 33

Filed: 12/15/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Ronnie D. Rainey pled guilty to one count of mail fraud and
was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment in May 2011.

This

Court affirmed his appeal.

See United States v. Rainey, 480 F.

App’x 215 (4th Cir. 2012).

In 2015, the district court granted

Rainey’s

motion

to

appoint

counsel,

conducted

a

restitution

hearing, and found that Rainey owed $2,268,937.97 in restitution
to

listed

judgment.

victims,

as

reflected

in

the

amended

criminal

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
appeal,

but

raising

one

issue:

whether

the

district

court

committed reversible error by ordering restitution to victims in
an amended judgment after a hearing.

We affirm.

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

error

issue

review

when

“was

not

brought

to

the

court’s

attention”); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)
(providing
counsel

standard

that

Rainey

for

plain

cannot

error
show

restitution hearing.

2

review).

plain

error

We

agree

regarding

with
his

Appeal: 15-4758

Doc: 33

Filed: 12/15/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
review

includes

the

supplemental brief.

issues

raised

in

Rainey’s

This

pro

se

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
court

of

jurisdiction

to

order

restitution),

and

the

court

properly declined to treat the restitution hearing as a full
sentencing rehearing.

See Sprague v. Ticonic, 307 U.S. 161,

167-68

that

(1939)

(noting

the

mandate

rule

prohibits

lower

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
the

case

doctrine).

We

therefore

affirm

Rainey’s

order

restitution as reflected in his amended criminal judgment.

of

This

court requires that counsel inform Rainey, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

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
representation.

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Rainey.

3

Appeal: 15-4758

Doc: 33

Filed: 12/15/2016

Pg: 4 of 4

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

4