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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [999952203]. Mailed to: Rainey. [16-6786]

Appeal: 16-6786

Doc: 6

Filed: 10/21/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6786

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 18, 2016

Decided:

October 21, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnie D. Rainey, Appellant Pro Se.
Jason Harris Cowley,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Evan Rikhye, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6786

Doc: 6

Filed: 10/21/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ronnie D. Rainey appeals from the district court’s order
dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration
of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. §
2255 (2012) motion and denying his related motions.

The court

construed the Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2255 motion.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Rainey’s motion
was not a true Rule 60(b) motion, but in substance a successive
§ 2255 motion.

See United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 399–

400 (4th Cir. 2015); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524,
531–32 (2005) (explaining how to differentiate a true Rule 60(b)
motion from an unauthorized successive habeas motion).
is

therefore

not

required

to

obtain

a

Rainey

certificate

appealability to appeal the district court’s order.

of

See McRae,

793 F.3d at 400.

In the absence of prefiling authorization from

this

district

court,

the

court

Rainey’s successive § 2255 motion.

lacked

jurisdiction

to

hear

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)

(2012).
Additionally,

we

construe

Rainey’s

notice

of

appeal

and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion.
(4th Cir. 2003).

United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208
In order to obtain authorization to file a

successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on
either:
2

Appeal: 16-6786

Doc: 6

Filed: 10/21/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have
found the movant guilty of the offense; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive
to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,
that was previously unavailable.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
these

criteria.

Rainey’s claims do not satisfy either of

Therefore,

we

deny

authorization

to

file

a

successive § 2255 motion.
With

respect

the

district

court’s

denial

of

Rainey’s

motions for a copy of its docket and to withdraw his guilty
plea, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court.

United States v. Rainey, No. 5:10-cr-00199-D-1 (E.D.N.C.

Apr. 28, 2016).
dispense

with

contentions

are

We thus affirm the district court’s order and
oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3