US v. Ronnie Rainey, No. 17-7365 (4th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7365 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RONNIE D. RAINEY, Defendant - Appellant. No. 17-7561 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RONNIE D. RAINEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals 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: April 19, 2018 Decided: April 23, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. No. 17-7365, dismissed; No. 17-7561, affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie D. Rainey, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Ronnie D. Rainey challenges (1) the district court’s order denying motions from nonparties to have their names removed from the amended criminal judgment (Appeal No. 17-7365); and (2) the order denying Rainey’s motion for clarification of the sentence (Appeal No. 17-7561). Rainey lacks standing to appeal the district court’s denial of relief for nonparties, Smith v. Frye, 488 F.3d 263, 272 (4th Cir. 2007) (finding a litigant “cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties” (internal quotation marks omitted)), and we therefore dismiss the appeal as to No. 17-7365. We affirm the district court’s denial of the motion for clarification, as the district court did not err in declining to revisit the sentence imposed, see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(b) (2012); United States v. Oliver, 878 F.3d 120, 125 (4th Cir. 2017) (“A criminal conviction becomes final at the end of the appellate process . . . .”). We also deny Rainey’s request for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to clarify the sentence. 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. No. 17-7365, DISMISSED; No. 17-7561, AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.