United States v. Billy Mills, Jr. , 588 F. App'x 232 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4461
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BILLY JOHN MILLS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Timothy M. Cain, District
Judge. (7:12-cr-00715-TMC-2)
Submitted: December 16, 2014 Decided: December 18, 2014
Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Jonathan M. Milling, MILLING LAW FIRM, LLC, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Billy John Mills, Jr., pled guilty pursuant to an oral
plea agreement to three counts of conspiracy to commit wire
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1349 (2012). Mills
negotiated a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, in which
the parties stipulated that concurrent sentences of one year and
one day would be appropriate. The district court accepted the
plea and imposed the stipulated sentences. This appeal timely
followed.
Mills’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), averring that there
are no meritorious appellate issues but citing the validity of
the guilty plea and the reasonableness of the sentence.
Although advised of his right to do so, Mills has not filed a
pro se supplemental brief. The Government has declined to file
a response brief. Finding no error, we affirm in part and
dismiss in part.
Where, as here, a defendant has not moved to withdraw
his guilty plea, we review his plea hearing for plain error.
United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002).
Our review of the record confirms that the district court
complied with the mandates of Rule 11, ensuring that Mills was
competent to plead guilty and that his guilty plea was knowing,
2
voluntary, and supported by an independent basis in fact. We
therefore affirm Mills’s convictions.
Further, we agree with counsel that Mills’s sentence
is not reviewable. Subject to narrow exceptions, a defendant
who agrees to and receives a particular sentence pursuant to
Rule 11(c)(1)(C) may not appeal that sentence. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3742(a), (c) (2012); United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928,
932 (10th Cir. 2005). None of the exceptions to this rule apply
here. Mills’s sentence was less than the applicable statutory
maximum of twenty years’ imprisonment, see 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and
was precisely what he and the Government agreed was appropriate.
Moreover, the sentence was not imposed as a result of an
incorrect application of the Sentencing Guidelines because it
was based on the parties agreement — not on the district court’s
calculation of the Guidelines. See United States v. Brown, 653
F.3d 337, 339-40 (4th Cir. 2011); United States v. Cieslowski,
410 F.3d 353, 364 (7th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we conclude
that review of Mills’s sentence is precluded by § 3742(c)(1).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Mills’s conviction and dismiss the appeal as to
his sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Mills, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Mills requests that a
3
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 Mills.
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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
4