US v. Matthew Hodgson, No. 13-4107 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4107 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MATTHEW THOMAS HODGSON, Defendant -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 Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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 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 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED 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.
