United States of America v. Milford Rogers

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[Unpublished]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

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
district court1 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.

-- 2 of 2 --