United States v. Rodgers

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 13, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-21178
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CEDRICK RODGERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CV-2105
USDC No. H-99-CR-737-2
Before JONES, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Larry Chris Iles, court-appointed counsel for Cedrick
Rodgers, has filed a motion for leave to withdraw as counsel
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting
that Rodgers’s appeal does not present a nonfrivolous issue. See
Dinkins v. Alabama, 526 F.2d 1268, 1269 (5th Cir. 1976). Rodgers

-- 1 of 2 --

2
has filed a response to counsel’s motion, arguing that his appeal
raises nonfrivolous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Our independent review of counsel’s Anders brief,
Rodgers’s response and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue
for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is
GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,
and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The request for
a COA, requested implicitly by the notice of appeal, is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --