Case ID: f-appx_223/html/0297-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Antonius HEIJNEN, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 06-4249.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 23, 2007.
    Decided: April 11, 2007.
    Antonius Heijnen, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Antonius Heijnen appeals following a remand to the district court for resentencing. Because the district court complied with our mandate and we find no reversible error, we affirm.

Heijnen was convicted after a jury trial on one count of conspiracy and five counts of wire fraud, for which he received a 188-month sentence. In his first appeal, Heijnen raised several assertions of error in his convictions and sentence. We affirmed Heijnen’s convictions, but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). United States v. Heijnen, 149 Fed.Appx. 165 (4th Cir.2005).

Upon remand, the district court resentenced Heijnen to 151 months of imprisonment. Heijnen now appeals. In his informal brief, Heijnen raises several assertions of error in his convictions, and argues that his sentence was enhanced based on judicial fact-finding in violation of the Sixth Amendment.

Under the mandate rule, consideration of Heijnen’s arguments is foreclosed because his convictions were affirmed in the original appeal, and the arguments raised by Heijnen related to his sentence were also specifically rejected. United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir.1993). We accordingly decline to address the issues because they are not properly before us.

We therefore affirm Heijnen’s sentence. We deny Heijnen’s motion to expedite the appeal as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.