UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

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, 
3

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 
4

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