US v. David Michael Hodge

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to dismiss appeal [999448405-2] Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00320-CCE-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999516909].. [14-4442]

Appeal: 14-4442

Doc: 38

Filed: 01/26/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4442

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID MICHAEL HODGES,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00320-CCE-1)

Submitted:

January 22, 2015

Decided:

January 26, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

William S. Trivette, WILLIAM S. TRIVETTE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, PLLC,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Anand P. Ramaswamy,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4442

Doc: 38

Filed: 01/26/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
David Michael Hodges pled guilty in accordance with a
written plea agreement to possession of child pornography after
a prior conviction involving child pornography, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), (b)(2) (2012).

The parties entered

into an agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
11(c)(1)(C), which stipulated that a sentence of 120 months’
imprisonment

would

presentence

report,

be

appropriate.

the

district

After

court

reviewing

accepted

the

the
plea

agreement and imposed the stipulated sentence.
On appeal, Hodges’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are

no

meritorious

appellate

sentence’s reasonableness.

issues,

but

challenging

the

Hodges filed a pro se supplemental

brief, in which he demands, as a sovereign citizen, that he be
released and his record expunged.

The United States moves to

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and Hodges does not oppose the
motion.

We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
Subject to narrow exceptions, a defendant who agrees

to

and

receives

11(c)(1)(C)

a

agreement

particular
may

sentence

not

appeal

pursuant

that

to

sentence.

a

Rule

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

applies

here.

Hodges’s
2

sentence

was

less

than

the

Appeal: 14-4442

Doc: 38

Filed: 01/26/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

applicable statutory maximum of twenty years’ imprisonment, see
18

U.S.C.

§

2252A(b)(1),

and

was

precisely

Government agreed was appropriate.
not

imposed

Sentencing

as

a

result

Guidelines

of

an

because

he

and

the

Moreover, the sentence was

incorrect

it

what

was

application

based

on

the

of

the

parties’

agreement rather than the district court’s calculation of the
Guidelines.
(4th

Cir.

See United States v. Brown, 653 F.3d 337, 339–40
2011).

Accordingly,

we

conclude

that

review

of

Hodges’s sentence is precluded by § 3742(c)(1), and we grant the
motion to dismiss the appeal as to Hodge’s sentence.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
therefore affirm Hodges’s conviction.

We

This court requires that

counsel inform Hodges, in writing, of the right to petition the
Supreme

Court

of

the

United

States

for

further

review.

If

Hodges 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
Hodges.
legal

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions

are

adequately

3

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 14-4442

before

Doc: 38

this

court

Filed: 01/26/2015

and

Pg: 4 of 4

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART

4