US v. Andrew Hood, No. 12-4316 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4316 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANDREW FRANKLIN HOOD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (7:11-cr-00112-H-1) Submitted: October 19, 2012 Decided: November 7, 2012 Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Andrew Franklin Hood pled guilty pornography, Supp. 2012), in to a single violation and was of 18 sentenced count of U.S.C.A. to 121 receipt of child § 2252(a)(2) (West months imprisonment. Counsel for Hood has now submitted a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that he has divined no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court improperly viewed the Guidelines as mandatory, rendering Hood s sentence procedurally unreasonable. The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal sentence based on his waiver of appellate rights. of Hood s Hood was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. Government s We have reviewed the record, and we grant the motion, dismissing Hood s appeal in part and affirming in part. A criminal defendant may, in a valid plea agreement, waive the right to appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (2006). States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). United We review the validity of an appellate waiver de novo and will enforce the waiver if it is valid and the issue appealed is within the scope of that waiver. Cir. 2005). United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Generally, if the district court fully questions a defendant regarding the waiver of his right to appeal during the plea colloquy performed in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, the waiver is both valid and enforceable. Manigan, 592 F.3d at 627; 137, United 2005). States Our v. review Johnson, of the voluntarily 410 F.3d record waived 151 the right Cir. us convinces (4th that Hood appeal his knowingly and to sentence. We therefore grant the Government s motion to dismiss as to all sentencing issues that a defendant may lawfully waive. As to any remaining issues, see Blick, 408 F.3d at 171-73; United States v. Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 2007), we have reviewed the entire record in accordance with Anders and have found no unwaived meritorious issues. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment as to all issues not encompassed by Hood s valid waiver of appellate rights. This writing, United of court the States requires right for to further that counsel petition the review. If inform Supreme Hood Hood, Court requests of in the 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 Hood. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
