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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . [16-4161]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
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)
September 29, 2016
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
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
The Government declined to file a brief.
withdraw his guilty plea, we review the guilty plea hearing for
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th
“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
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.
abuse of discretion standard.
38, 51 (2007).
Pg: 3 of 4
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.
Id. at 328.
If we find
We presume on appeal
Guidelines range is substantively reasonable.
Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
United States v.
Such a presumption
is rebutted only when the defendant shows “that the sentence is
correctly calculated Gainey’s advisory Guidelines range, heard
allocute, and considered the § 3553(a) sentencing factors.
Pg: 4 of 4
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
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.
court requires that counsel inform Gainey, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
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
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Gainey.
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?