US v. Ronnie D. Rainey, No. 16-6786 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6786 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RONNIE D. RAINEY, Defendant - Appellant.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 18, 2016 Decided: October 21, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie D. Rainey, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Harris Cowley, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Evan Rikhye, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronnie D. Rainey appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his related motions. The court construed the Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2255 motion. We have reviewed the record and conclude that Rainey’s motion was not a true Rule 60(b) motion, but in substance a successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 399– 400 (4th Cir. 2015); see also Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531–32 (2005) (explaining how to differentiate a true Rule 60(b) motion from an unauthorized successive habeas motion). is therefore not required to obtain a Rainey certificate appealability to appeal the district court’s order. of See McRae, 793 F.3d at 400. In the absence of prefiling authorization from this district court, the court Rainey’s successive § 2255 motion. lacked jurisdiction to hear See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012). Additionally, we construe Rainey’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. (4th Cir. 2003). United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: 2 (1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). these criteria. Rainey’s claims do not satisfy either of Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. With respect the district court’s denial of Rainey’s motions for a copy of its docket and to withdraw his guilty plea, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Rainey, No. 5:10-cr-00199-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 28, 2016). dispense with contentions are We thus affirm the district court’s order and oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 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.
