US v. Matthew Hodgson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to seal [999142488-2], granting Motion to seal [999161040-2], granting Motion to seal [999166448-2]; granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999166450-2], granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999161049-2], granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999142496-2] Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00212-ELH-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999210705]. [13-4107]

Appeal: 13-4107

Doc: 42

Filed: 10/08/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4107

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MATTHEW THOMAS HODGSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge.
(1:11-cr-00212-ELH-1)

Submitted:

September 30, 2013

Decided:

October 8, 2013

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

Mirriam Z. Seddiq, MIRRIAM Z. SEDDIQ, P.C., Fairfax, Virginia,
for Appellant.
Michael Clayton Hanlon, Assistant United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-4107

Doc: 42

Filed: 10/08/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Matthew

Thomas

Hodgson

pled

guilty,

pursuant

to

a

written plea agreement, to one count of possession of ammunition
by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)
(2006).

The parties agreed that a sentence of seventy-eight

months in prison was the appropriate disposition of the case,
and the district court accepted the agreement.
Hodgson

now

appeals.

Counsel

has

filed

a

brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), finding
no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning the sentence.
Counsel

concedes,

however,

appeal this issue.
pro

se

that

Hodgson

waived

his

right

to

Hodgson was advised of his right to file a

supplemental

brief,

but

he

did

not

file

one.

The

Government has moved to dismiss Hodgson’s appeal of his sentence
based on his waiver of appellate rights.

We dismiss in part and

affirm in part.
In the absence of circumstances not present here, when
a defendant agrees to and receives a particular sentence, he
generally may not appeal his sentence.

Cf. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a),

(c) (2006); United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 932 (10th
Cir.

2005).

sentence

to

Here,
which

the

district

Hodgson

agreed,

exceed the statutory maximum.

court
and

imposed
the

the

sentence

specific
did

not

Moreover, it was not imposed as a

result of an incorrect application of the Sentencing Guidelines
2

Appeal: 13-4107

Doc: 42

Filed: 10/08/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

because it was based on the parties’ agreement and not on the
district court’s calculation of the Guidelines.

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).

Additionally,

Hodgson waived his right to appeal the issue he seeks to raise.
United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005).
therefore

grant

the

Government’s

motion

to

dismiss

We

Hodgson’s

appeal to the extent that he challenges his sentence.
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues
for appeal.

We therefore affirm Hodgson’s conviction, grant the

Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal of the sentence and
dismiss the appeal of the sentence.

Additionally, we grant the

motions to seal, deny as moot the motion to stay the briefing
order, and deny Hodgson’s counsel’s request to withdraw.
This court requires that counsel inform Hodgson, in
writing,

of

the

right

to

petition

United States for further review.

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

If Hodgson 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 Hodgson.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

3

Appeal: 13-4107

Doc: 42

adequately

Filed: 10/08/2013

presented

in

the

Pg: 4 of 4

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

4