Derrick Rogers v. USA


Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Derrick Rogers. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link

Download PDF
Case: 17-10219 Date Filed: 10/13/2017 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-10219 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket Nos. 1:16-cv-02201-TWT, 2:09-cr-00441-TWT-AJB-1 DERRICK ROGERS, a.k.a. Deonte Benson, Petitioner-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________ (October 13, 2017) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 17-10219 Date Filed: 10/13/2017 Page: 2 of 2 Derrick Rogers appeals the denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Rogers, whose sentence for possession of a firearm as a felon was enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), sought relief on the ground that his prior conviction in a Georgia court for robbery by intimidation did not qualify as a violent felony in the wake of Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. ––––, 135 S. Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). But Rogers does not challenge the finding that his robbery conviction qualified as a violent felony. And Rogers concedes, as he did in the district court, that he has a prior conviction for aggravated battery that qualifies as a violent felony under the elements clause, which “with his two serious drug predicates” makes him “an armed career criminal.” Because Rogers is not entitled to relief from his sentence, we affirm the denial of his motion to vacate. 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?