US v. Ronald Gainey

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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