United States of America v. Matthew Thomas Hodgson

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
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, that Hodgson waived his right to
appeal this issue. Hodgson was advised of his right to file a
pro se 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). Here, the district court imposed the specific
sentence to which Hodgson agreed, and the sentence did not
exceed the statutory maximum. Moreover, it was not imposed as a
result of an incorrect application of the Sentencing Guidelines

-- 2 of 4 --

3
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). We
therefore grant the Government’s motion to dismiss 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 the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. 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 of 4 --

4
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

-- 4 of 4 --