UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4903

JOHN FITZGERALD HUDSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.

Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge.

(CR-99-134-V)

Submitted: August 29, 2003

Decided: September 17, 2003

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Randolph M. Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Karen

Marston Wilson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Following his conviction for drug trafficking, John Fitzgerald Hudson was sentenced to 135 months in prison. The United States

appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying a two-level

enhancement for obstruction of justice and finding that Hudson was

entitled to a reduction of his offense level for acceptance of responsibility. We reversed "the district court’s failure to apply the obstruction

of justice enhancement and its grant of a reduction for acceptance of

responsibility." United States v. Hudson, 272 F.2d 260, 264 (4th Cir.

2001). We remanded for resentencing. Id.

At resentencing, the district court enhanced Hudson’s offense level

for obstruction of justice and did not reduce his offense level for

acceptance of responsibility. Hudson’s resulting offense level was 36,

and his criminal history category was III, resulting in a guideline

range of 235-293 months. He received a 235-month sentence. 

Hudson now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), claiming that venue

was improper in the Western District of North Carolina but stating

that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Hudson has filed a pro

se brief in which he asserts improper venue as well as miscalculation

of his criminal history category. We affirm. 

Under the mandate rule, consideration of the propriety of venue

and the calculation of Hudson’s criminal history category is foreclosed because these issues were not raised in the original appeal and

are not reasonably within the scope of the mandate. See United States

v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 1993). We accordingly decline to

address these issues because they are not properly before us. 

We therefore affirm. We have, as required by Anders, reviewed the

entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. This

court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right

to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.

If Hudson requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that

2 UNITED STATES v. HUDSON
such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this

court to withdraw from representation. 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

UNITED STATES v. HUDSON 3