UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 to a single count of receipt of child 

pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252(a)(2) (West 

Supp. 2012), and was sentenced to 121 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 of Hood’s 

sentence based on his waiver of appellate rights. Hood was 

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

has not done so. We have reviewed the record, and we grant the 

Government’s 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). United 

States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 627 (4th Cir. 2010). 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. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th 

Cir. 2005). Generally, if the district court fully questions a 
3

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; United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 (4th Cir. 

2005). Our review of the record convinces us that Hood

knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his 

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 court requires that counsel inform Hood, in 

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the 

United States for further review. If Hood 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 Hood.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
4

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART