US v. Terry Speller

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999961734-2] Originating case number: 4:15-cr-00046-F-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000080499]. [16-4163]

Appeal: 16-4163

Doc: 54

Filed: 05/12/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4163

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TERRY LAMONT SPELLER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (4:15-cr-00046-F-1)

Submitted:

March 7, 2017

Decided:

May 12, 2017

Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4163

Doc: 54

Filed: 05/12/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Terry Lamont Speller seeks to appeal his conviction and
sentence.

Speller waived his right to an indictment and pled

guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to a criminal information
charging him with health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1347 (2012) and engaging in monetary transactions involving
criminally derived property in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957
(2012).
v.

Speller’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders

California,

386

U.S.

738

(1967),

concluding

there

are

no

meritorious grounds for appeal but raising sentencing issues.
Speller has filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing that the
district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because he did
not waive his right to an indictment, and the court erred in
finding facts in sentencing him.

The Government has moved to

dismiss the appeal as barred by Speller’s waiver of the right to
appeal included in the plea agreement.
“Plea

bargains

rest

on

We dismiss the appeal.

contractual

principles,

party should receive the benefit of its bargain.”

and

each

United States

v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 173 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).

“A defendant may waive the right

to appeal his conviction and sentence so long as the waiver is
knowing and voluntary.”

United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d

522, 528 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).

“We review the validity of an appeal waiver de novo,
2

Appeal: 16-4163

and

Doc: 54

will

Filed: 05/12/2017

enforce

the

waiver

Pg: 3 of 4

if

it

is

valid

appealed is within the scope of the waiver.”

and

the

issue

Id. (internal

quotation marks and citations omitted).
Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, we conclude that Speller knowingly
and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his conviction and
sentence, and the issues he seeks to appeal are within the scope
of the waiver. ∗

Moreover, in accordance with Anders, we have

reviewed the record for any potentially meritorious issues that
might fall outside the scope of the waiver and have found none.
Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss
the appeal.

This court requires that counsel inform his or her

client, in writing, of his or her right to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for further review.

If the client

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 the client.

∗

To the extent that any of Speller’s pro se issues fall
outside the scope of the waiver, they are plainly without merit.

3

Appeal: 16-4163

We

Doc: 54

dispense

Filed: 05/12/2017

with

Pg: 4 of 4

oral

because

argument

the

facts

and

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

4