UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4611

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,

District Judge. (5:10-cr-00199-D-1)

Submitted: April 30, 2012 Decided: May 9, 2012

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

W. H. Paramore, III, W. H. PARAMORE, III, P.C., Jacksonville, 

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronnie D. Rainey pled guilty to one count of mail 

fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341 (West Supp. 2011), and

was sentenced to 120 months in prison. In accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Rainey’s attorney has 

filed a brief certifying that there are no meritorious issues 

for appeal but questioning whether the Government breached the 

terms of Rainey’s plea agreement. Rainey has filed a pro se 

supplemental brief raising numerous claims.*

 We affirm Rainey’s 

conviction and sentence.

Because Rainey did not assert in the district court

that the Government had breached the terms of his plea 

agreement, his claims on appeal to that effect are reviewed for 

plain error. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 133-34

(2009). To prevail under this standard, Rainey must show that 

he was prejudiced by a breach of his plea agreement that “was so 

obvious and substantial that failure to notice and correct it 

affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the 

judicial proceedings.” United States v. McQueen, 108 F.3d 64, 

 * In his pro se brief, Rainey alleges multiple instances of 

breach of the plea agreement, challenges the validity of his 

guilty plea, contests the calculation of his offense level on 

multiple grounds, attacks the procedural and substantive 

reasonableness of his sentence, and asserts ineffective 

assistance of counsel.
3

65-66 (4th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and alteration 

omitted). We have carefully examined the record and are unable 

to find an obvious breach of Rainey’s plea agreement. 

Therefore, this claim entitles him to no relief.

We decline to consider Rainey’s pro se claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel at this time. Generally, such 

claims are not cognizable on direct appeal unless the record 

conclusively establishes counsel’s “objectively unreasonable 

performance” and resulting prejudice. United States v. Benton, 

523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008). Instead, ineffective 

assistance claims are most appropriately pursued in a motion 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011). See United

States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). 

Here, the record offers no clear indication of counsel’s 

deficient performance. We have examined the remainder of 

Rainey’s pro se claims and conclude that they lack merit. 

Rainey’s challenges to the losses of specific victims are

premature, as the district court has not yet entered its final 

order of restitution.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record 

and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore 

affirm Rainey’s conviction and sentence. This court requires 

that counsel inform Rainey, in writing, of his right to petition 

the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If 
4

Rainey requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes 

that such a petition would be frivolous, 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. 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