UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4002

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ERNEST FREDERICK HODGES, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District

Judge. (CR-05-40)

Submitted: January 26, 2007 Decided: February 21, 2007

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William H. Lindsey, WILLIAM H. LINDSEY, P.C., Salem, Virginia, for

Appellant. Ronald Andrew Bassford, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial, Ernest Frederick Hodges, Jr., was

convicted on one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted

felon and one count of possession of ammunition by a convicted

felon, both in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (West

2000 & Supp. 2006). The district court sentenced Hodges to

concurrent terms of 220 months’ imprisonment. Hodges timely

appealed.

Hodges’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no

meritorious grounds for appeal but contending that the district

court abused its discretion by failing to order the government to

divulge the identity of the confidential informant whose

information formed the basis for the search warrant of Hodges’

home. Hodges was informed of his right to file a pro se

supplemental brief but he has not filed one.

A defendant bears the burden of proving that he is

entitled to know the identity of a confidential informant.

Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U.S. 528, 534-35 (1964).

Disclosure of the identity of an informant is required when the

informant’s testimony is highly relevant “to the defense of an

accused, or essential to a fair determination of a cause.”

Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 60-61 (1957); United

States v. Smith, 780 F.2d 1102, 1108 (4th Cir. 1985). Where the
- 3 -

informant is used only for the purpose of obtaining a search

warrant, and not in connection with the offense charged, the

informant’s identity need not be disclosed. United States v. Gray,

47 F.3d 1359, 1365 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Fisher, 440

F.2d 654, 656 (4th Cir. 1971). The district court’s decision

concerning whether to require the revelation of a confidential

informant’s identity is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United

States v. Hollis, 245 F.3d 671, 673 (8th Cir. 2001); Smith, 780

F.2d at 1108.

In this case, the informant was used only to obtain a

search warrant for Hodges’ residence to search for indicia of

heroin trafficking. The charges against Hodges were not based on

heroin trafficking but on firearms and ammunition found in Hodges’

home when it was searched pursuant to the warrant. We therefore

find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

declining to compel the government to divulge the informant’s

identity. 

Consistent with Anders, we have reviewed the record in

this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm Hodges’ convictions and sentence. This

court requires that counsel inform Hodges, in writing, of the right

to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

review. If Hodges requests that a petition be filed, but counsel

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may
- 4 -

move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on

Hodges. 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.

AFFIRMED