USA v. Anderson et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
RODNEY JESSE ANDERSON,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:16-cr-00056-SLG
ORDER
On January 23, 2018, Defendant Rodney Anderson filed a motion under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (Docket 194). 	The Court subsequently appointed counsel for Mr. Anderson
(Docket 196). On July 27, 2018, at Docket 205, counsel filed a Brief of No-Merit Pursuant
to Anders v. California.1 	Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that counsel’s motion to withdraw
as set forth in that Anders filing is GRANTED. 	IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk
of Court shall mail a copy of the Supplemental Anders brief at Docket 205 to Mr. Anderson
with this order.
The Court has reviewed Mr. Anderson’s motion and memorandum in support that
he filed at Docket 194 and Docket 195, respectively. IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Anderson
may file a supplemental memorandum addressing the merits of his pending Section 2255
motion on or before October 22, 2018. The Court will then undertake a” “full examination
of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.”2
1 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
2 Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.
Case 3:16-cr-00056-SLG Document 208 Filed 10/01/18 Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:16-cr-00056-SLG-DMS, United States v. Anderson
Order
Page 2 of 2
IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that the order entered at Docket 196 is AMENDED
as follows: 	The United States is not required to file a response to the motion at Docket
194 unless and until the Court otherwise orders.3
Also before the Court at Docket 206 is Defendant Anderson’s Motion to Accept
Late Filed Notice of Appeal, filed on August 27, 2018. The Government filed an opposition
to that motion at Docket 207. In the motion, Mr. Anderson asserts that he mailed a notice
of appeal to the court on June 14, 2017, over one year ago, but he “just recently learned
that the case never was docketed.”4 	The Court notes that Mr. Anderson has filed two
Section 2255 motions, one of which was later withdrawn,5 the other which is currently
pending (Docket 194) and addressed above in this order. 	In neither motion did Mr.
Anderson indicate that he had attempted to pursue an appeal with the Ninth Circuit in
June 2017. To the contrary, in his January 23, 2018 motion, which Mr. Anderson certified
was true and correct under penalty of perjury, he clearly indicated that he had not
appealed from the Court’s judgment in this case.6 Accordingly, the motion at Docket 206
is DENIED.7
DATED this 1st day of October, 2018 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 See Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, Rule 5.
4 Docket 206 at 1.
5 Docket 186, 189, 190.
6 Docket 194 at 2.
7 Moreover, in the parties’ Plea Agreement, which the Court accepted, Mr. Anderson expressly
waived his right to appeal the judgment and sentence. See Docket 136 (Plea Agreement) at 11-
12.
Case 3:16-cr-00056-SLG Document 208 Filed 10/01/18 Page 2 of 2