Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-04758/USCOURTS-ca4-15-04758-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronnie D. Rainey
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4758

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 20, 2016 Decided: December 15, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit 

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Deborrah L. Newton, NEWTON LAW, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4758 Doc: 33 Filed: 12/15/2016 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie D. Rainey pled guilty to one count of mail fraud and 

was sentenced to 120 months of imprisonment in May 2011. This 

Court affirmed his appeal. See United States v. Rainey, 480 F. 

App’x 215 (4th Cir. 2012). In 2015, the district court granted 

Rainey’s motion to appoint counsel, conducted a restitution

hearing, and found that Rainey owed $2,268,937.97 in restitution 

to listed victims, as reflected in the amended criminal 

judgment. Rainey appeals from the amended criminal judgment. 

Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds for 

appeal, but raising one issue: whether the district court 

committed reversible error by ordering restitution to victims in 

an amended judgment after a hearing. We affirm.

As noted by appellate counsel, our review for errors by the 

district court in ordering restitution is for plain error only, 

as Rainey raised no objections to the amounts of restitution in 

the hearing below. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) (applying plain 

error review when issue “was not brought to the court’s 

attention”); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)

(providing standard for plain error review). We agree with 

counsel that Rainey cannot show plain error regarding his 

restitution hearing.

Appeal: 15-4758 Doc: 33 Filed: 12/15/2016 Pg: 2 of 4
3

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in 

this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. This 

review includes the issues raised in Rainey’s pro se 

supplemental brief. The district court was allowed to rule on 

Rainey’s restitution despite the passage of time, see United 

States v. Dolan, 560 U.S. 605, 609-11 (2010) (missing 90-day 

deadline in Mandatory Victim Restitution Act does not deprive a 

court of jurisdiction to order restitution), and the court 

properly declined to treat the restitution hearing as a full 

sentencing rehearing. See Sprague v. Ticonic, 307 U.S. 161, 

167-68 (1939) (noting that the mandate rule prohibits lower 

courts, with limited exceptions, from considering questions that 

the mandate of a higher court has laid to rest); United States 

v. Aramony, 166 F.3d 655, 661 (4th Cir. 1999) (discussing law of 

the case doctrine). We therefore affirm Rainey’s order of 

restitution as reflected in his amended criminal judgment. This 

court requires that counsel inform Rainey, in writing, of the 

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for 

further review. If Rainey 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 Rainey.

Appeal: 15-4758 Doc: 33 Filed: 12/15/2016 Pg: 3 of 4
4

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

Appeal: 15-4758 Doc: 33 Filed: 12/15/2016 Pg: 4 of 4