United States v. Milford Rogers

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 24-3021

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Milford Rogers

Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern

____________

Submitted: August 11, 2025 Filed: August 14, 2025

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Milford Rogers received a 264-month sentence after pleading guilty to being in a drug conspiracy. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846. An Anders brief and pro se supplemental brief both suggest resentencing is necessary because the

2

district court 1 miscalculated the advisory Guidelines range. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

We conclude otherwise. See United States v. Neri, 73 F.4th 984, 988 (8th Cir.

2023) (describing harmless-error review). The district court explained that it would have imposed “the same sentence,” based on “all of the . . . [§] 3553(a) factors,” even if it “had . . . ruled differently on all of the various [G]uideline issues.” Any procedural error, in other words, had no effect on the sentence Rogers received. See Neri, 73 F.4th at 988.

We have also independently reviewed the record and conclude that no other non-frivolous issues exist. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel permission to withdraw.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.