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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [999987503].. [15-4758]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-4758 Doc: 33 Filed: 12/15/2016 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4758 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RONNIE D. RAINEY, Defendant - Appellant.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 Chief Judge, Decided: and DUNCAN December 15, 2016 and DIAZ, Circuit Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?