UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4126

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHN JOSEPH SPEARS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (5:13-cr-00054-F-2)

Submitted: August 29, 2014 Decided: September 4, 2014

Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

R. Clarke Speaks, SPEAKS LAW FIRM, Wilmington, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Joseph Spears pled guilty in accordance with a 

written plea agreement to conspiracy to commit armed bank 

robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012), and was 

sentenced to sixty months of imprisonment. On appeal, Spears’ 

attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738 (1967), conceding there are no meritorious claims, but 

raising two issues: (1) whether the district court committed 

error by not offering an adequate explanation for the sentence 

imposed; and (2) whether the district court erred by not 

properly considering Spears’ extraordinary personal history and 

characteristics in denying his motion for a variance sentence. 

Spears was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental 

brief but did not do so. The United States moves to dismiss the 

appeal based on a waiver-of-appellate-rights provision in the 

plea agreement. Spears opposes the motion. For the reasons 

that follow, we dismiss in part, and affirm in part.

In the plea agreement, Spears waived his right to 

appeal his sentence, except for grounds not extant in this 

appeal. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the waiver 

is valid and enforceable. We further find that the issues 

Spears seeks to raise on appeal——the two sentencing issues 

raised in counsel’s Anders brief——fall within the scope of the 

waiver. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168-70 (4th Cir. 
3

2005). Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss the appeal, 

insofar as it relates to sentencing, and do not further address 

counsel’s sentencing issues on appeal.

The appeal waiver did not apply to Spears’ conviction, 

however. Having reviewed the entire record, we find that the 

district court substantially complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 

11(b)(1), there was a factual basis for the plea, and the plea 

was knowing and voluntary. Because Spears did not move in the 

district court to withdraw his guilty plea, we review the 

adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing for plain error 

only, United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524–27 (4th Cir. 

2002), and find none. 

Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record 

for meritorious, nonwaivable issues and have found none. We 

therefore dismiss the appeal of his sentence and affirm Spears’ 

conviction. This court requires that counsel inform Spears, in 

writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Spears requests that such 

a petition be filed, but counsel believes that the 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 of the motion was served on Spears. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART