Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 23 views

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Andrew Hood pled guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography and was sentenced to 121 months in prison. 2) Hood waived his right to appeal his sentence in his plea agreement. The court found his waiver to be knowing and voluntary. 3) The court granted the government's motion to dismiss Hood's appeal of his sentence based on the valid waiver but reviewed unwaived issues and found no meritorious grounds for appeal. The district court's judgment was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    23 views4 pages
    1) Andrew Hood pled guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography and was sentenced to 121 months in prison. 2) Hood waived his right to appeal his sentence in his plea agreement. The court found his waiver to be knowing and voluntary. 3) The court granted the government's motion to dismiss Hood's appeal of his sentence based on the valid waiver but reviewed unwaived issues and found no meritorious grounds for appeal. The district court's judgment was affirmed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-11-07 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-4316

    Original Title

    United States v. Andrew Hood, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Andrew Hood pled guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography and was sentenced to 121 months in prison. 2) Hood waived his right to appeal his sentence in his plea agreement. The court found his waiver to be knowing and voluntary. 3) The court granted the government's motion to dismiss Hood's appeal of his sentence based on the valid waiver but reviewed unwaived issues and found no meritorious grounds for appeal. The district court's judgment was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    23 views4 pages

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Andrew Hood pled guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography and was sentenced to 121 months in prison. 2) Hood waived his right to appeal his sentence in his plea agreement. The court found his waiver to be knowing and voluntary. 3) The court granted the government's motion to dismiss Hood's appeal of his sentence based on the valid waiver but reviewed unwaived issues and found no meritorious grounds for appeal. The district court's judgment was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    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

    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 Hoods sentence procedurally unreasonable.
    The

    Government

    has

    moved

    to

    dismiss

    the

    appeal

    sentence based on his waiver of appellate rights.

    of

    Hoods

    Hood was

    informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but


    has not done so.
    Governments

    We have reviewed the record, and we grant the

    motion,

    dismissing

    Hoods

    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

    convinces

    the

    right

    151

    (4th

    Cir.

    us

    that

    Hood

    appeal

    his

    knowingly

    and

    to

    sentence.

    We therefore grant the Governments 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 courts judgment as to all issues


    not encompassed by Hoods valid waiver of appellate rights.
    This
    writing,
    United

    of

    court

    the

    States

    requires

    right

    for

    to

    further

    that

    petition
    review.

    counsel
    the
    If

    inform

    Supreme
    Hood

    Hood,

    Court

    requests

    of

    in
    the

    that

    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.

    Counsels motion must

    state that a copy thereof was served on Hood.


    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    the

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional

    process.
    DISMISSED IN PART;
    AFFIRMED IN PART

    You might also like