USA v. Jahques Rogers

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Jahques Rogers. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. Motion to withdraw as counsel filed by William Thomas Hudson is GRANTED. [8011094-2]. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Download PDF
Case: 16-16132 Date Filed: 05/24/2017 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-16132 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 4:16-cr-00155-WTM-GRS-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JAHQUES ROGERS, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia ________________________ (May 24, 2017) Before HULL, WILSON, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: W. Thomas Hudson, appointed counsel for Jahques Rogers in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the Case: 16-16132 Date Filed: 05/24/2017 Page: 2 of 2 appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Rogers filed a response, in which he states that Hudson has provided ineffective assistance of counsel. Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. We do not consider Rogers’s allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel because the record is not sufficiently developed for review. See United States v. Puentes-Hurtado, 794 F.3d 1278, 1285 (11th Cir. 2015). He is free to raise these allegations on collateral review in a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See id. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Rogers’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?