United States of America v. James Hilton Ayodeji

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 04-4695
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JAMES HILTON AYODEJI
Appellant
On Appeal From the United States
District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. Action No. 04-cr-00058)
District Judge: Hon. Sylvia H. Rambo
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 17, 2007
BEFORE: McKEE, AMBRO, and STAPLETON,
Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed January 26, 2007 )

-- 1 of 3 --

2
OPINION OF THE COURT
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:
Appellant, James Hilton Ayodeji, is the subject of a final order of removal. A jury
found him guilty of hindering his removal from the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(1)(C) and of making a false statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the
government of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). These charges
arose out of Ayodeji’s refusal to provide information necessary to the execution of the
order of removal and his continued insistence that he is Ernest E. Grayson, an individual
who was born in Greenville, South Carolina, on September 3, 1963, and whose Social
Security Number is 072-54-5918.
Appellant’s counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967).
We have reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel for the government and
the appellant that there are no non-frivolous issues presented by this appeal. The
government presented ample evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that Ayodeji is not
Ernest E. Grayson and that he had hindered his removal by refusing to supply information
and fingerprints necessary to secure valid travel documents. We perceive no trial or
sentencing errors.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We are satisfied that Ayodeji’s counsel has adequately fulfilled the requirements of
Rule 109.2, and his motion to withdraw will be granted. The issues presented in this
appeal lack legal merit and thus do not require the filing of a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the Supreme Court.
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

-- 3 of 3 --