UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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.
2
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.
3
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