The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dismissed an appeal by Stanley Willocks Hodgson, who was convicted of distributing cocaine, possessing fentanyl with intent to distribute, and illegally possessing firearms as a non-immigrant visa holder. The three-judge panel granted the government's motion to dismiss based on a sentence appeal waiver in Hodgson's plea agreement, while ordering the district court to correct inconsistencies in the written judgment.

Hodgson was sentenced in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on charges that included distributing cocaine, possessing with intent to distribute fentanyl, and possessing a firearm and ammunition as an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa. The case originated from criminal docket number 2:22-cr-00234-KKD-SMD-1, indicating the charges were filed in 2022.

The defendant's primary argument on appeal centered on alleged due process violations stemming from discrepancies between the conditions of supervised release that were orally imposed by the district court during sentencing and the conditions subsequently listed in the written judgment. Hodgson contended that these inconsistencies violated his constitutional right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

However, the government successfully moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that Hodgson had waived his right to challenge his sentence when he entered into his plea agreement. Such sentence appeal waivers are common provisions in federal plea agreements that require defendants to give up their right to appeal their sentences in exchange for other considerations, such as reduced charges or sentencing recommendations.

The Eleventh Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Jill Pryor, Branch, and Grant, issued a per curiam opinion addressing both the appeal waiver and the underlying procedural issue. The court applied de novo review to determine the scope and validity of the sentence appeal waiver, citing precedent from *United States v. Read* (118 F.4th 1317, 1320, 11th Cir. 2024) and *United States v. Johnson*.

Under federal law, aliens admitted to the United States under nonimmigrant visas are generally prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition. This prohibition applies to various categories of nonimmigrant visa holders, including tourists, students, and temporary workers, unless they meet specific exceptions. Hodgson's conviction on this charge suggests he was in the United States legally under a temporary visa but allegedly violated federal firearms laws.

The drug charges against Hodgson involved both cocaine distribution and fentanyl possession with intent to distribute. Federal sentencing guidelines treat these offenses seriously, particularly given the ongoing opioid crisis and the deadly nature of fentanyl. The combination of drug and firearm charges often results in enhanced penalties under federal sentencing provisions.

While the Eleventh Circuit dismissed Hodgson's appeal based on the waiver provision, the court recognized the legitimacy of his concern about the discrepancies between the oral sentencing pronouncement and the written judgment. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 allows courts to correct clerical errors in judgments, and discrepancies between oral pronouncements and written judgments can create confusion about the actual terms of a defendant's sentence.

The court's decision to remand the case for correction of the written judgment reflects the principle that the oral pronouncement of sentence in open court is generally considered the official sentence. When written judgments contain errors or inconsistencies with the oral pronouncement, district courts have the authority and obligation to correct these discrepancies to ensure accuracy in the record.

This case illustrates the binding nature of sentence appeal waivers in federal plea agreements and the importance of careful attention to the details of sentencing proceedings. While defendants who enter plea agreements with appeal waivers generally cannot challenge their sentences on appeal, courts retain the responsibility to ensure that written judgments accurately reflect the sentences actually imposed.

The Eleventh Circuit's handling of this case demonstrates the court's approach to balancing the enforcement of valid plea agreement terms with the need for accurate judicial records. By dismissing the appeal while ordering correction of the judgment, the court upheld the terms of Hodgson's plea agreement while addressing the procedural deficiency that prompted his appeal.

The case also highlights the complex intersection of immigration and criminal law in federal prosecutions. Non-immigrant visa holders who face federal criminal charges must navigate both the criminal justice system and potential immigration consequences, as criminal convictions can affect their ability to remain in or return to the United States.

This decision reinforces the Eleventh Circuit's consistent enforcement of sentence appeal waivers while maintaining attention to procedural accuracy in federal sentencing proceedings.