US v. Terry Speller


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4163 Doc: 54 Filed: 05/12/2017 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4163 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERRY LAMONT SPELLER, Defendant -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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?