US v. Ronald Gainey


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00245-NCT-3 Copies to all parties and the district court. [999939747]. [16-4161]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4161 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/03/2016 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4161 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RONALD MATTHEW GAINEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:15-cr-00245-NCT-3) Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 3, 2016 Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen F. Wallace, WALLACE LAW FIRM, High Point, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-4161 Doc: 20 Filed: 10/03/2016 Pg: 2 of 4 PER CURIAM: Ronald Matthew Gainey pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2012). The district court sentenced Gainey to 175 months’ imprisonment, a term below his 240-month advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating appeal. The Government declined to file a brief. Because that Gainey there did not are no move in meritorious the grounds district court for to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the guilty plea hearing for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). “To establish plain error, [Gainey] must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights.” 478 F.3d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 2007). United States v. Muhammad, Even if Gainey satisfies these requirements, “correction of the error remains within our discretion, which we should not exercise . . . unless the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial omitted). proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court substantially complied with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in accepting Gainey’s guilty plea, which Gainey entered knowingly and voluntarily. 2 Appeal: 16-4161 Doc: 20 Turning procedural Filed: 10/03/2016 to and Gainey’s sentence, substantive we review reasonableness abuse of discretion standard. 38, 51 (2007). Pg: 3 of 4 a under sentence a for deferential Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. We must first ensure that the district court did not commit any “significant procedural error,” such as failing to properly calculate the applicable Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors, or failing to adequately explain the sentence. the sentence procedurally substantive reasonableness. reasonable, that a sentence we within Id. at 328. or below Id. then If we find consider its We presume on appeal the properly Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014). calculated United States v. Such a presumption is rebutted only when the defendant shows “that the sentence is unreasonable United when States measured v. against Montes-Pineda, the 445 § F.3d 3553(a) 375, 379 factors.” (4th Cir. 2006). Upon sentencing review, error we by discern the no district procedural court. The or substantive district court correctly calculated Gainey’s advisory Guidelines range, heard argument opportunity to allocute, and considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. We have from reviewed counsel, the record provided and Gainey conclude 3 an that Gainey’s below- Appeal: 16-4161 Doc: 20 Guidelines Filed: 10/03/2016 sentence is both Pg: 4 of 4 procedurally and substantively reasonable. Gainey filed a pro se supplemental brief asserting that the district court erred in adjudging him permanently ineligible to receive federal benefits. However, the district court made no such ruling. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. This court requires that counsel inform Gainey, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Gainey 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 Gainey. 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?