United States v. Heijnen

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4249
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTONIUS HEIJNEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (8:03-cr-00045-GRA-6)
Submitted: March 23, 2007 Decided: April 11, 2007
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antonius Heijnen, Appellant Pro Se. David Calhoun Stephens,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonius Heijnen appeals following a remand to the
district court for resentencing. Because the district court
complied with our mandate and we find no reversible error, we
affirm.
Heijnen was convicted after a jury trial on one count of
conspiracy and five counts of wire fraud, for which he received a
188-month sentence. In his first appeal, Heijnen raised several
assertions of error in his convictions and sentence. We affirmed
Heijnen’s convictions, but vacated his sentence and remanded for
resentencing in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.
220 (2005). United States v. Heijnen, 149 F. App’x 165 (4th Cir.
2005) (No. 04-4036).
Upon remand, the district court resentenced Heijnen to
151 months of imprisonment. Heijnen now appeals. In his informal
brief, Heijnen raises several assertions of error in his
convictions, and argues that his sentence was enhanced based on
judicial fact-finding in violation of the Sixth Amendment.
Under the mandate rule, consideration of Heijnen’s
arguments is foreclosed because his convictions were affirmed in
the original appeal, and the arguments raised by Heijnen related to
his sentence were also specifically rejected. United States v.
Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 1993). We accordingly decline to
address the issues because they are not properly before us.
- 2 -
We therefore affirm Heijnen’s sentence. We deny
Heijnen’s motion to expedite the appeal as moot. 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
- 3 -