United States of America v. Alfred D. Rogers

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3214
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Alfred D. Rogers
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
____________
Submitted: October 2, 2025
Filed: October 7, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Alfred Rogers received a 480-month prison sentence after a jury found him
guilty of drug and firearm offenses. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1); 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(A). In addition to arguing the sentence is too long, an Anders brief
suggests that the jury should never have heard about his prior convictions or what a
confidential informant told the police. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
(1967). A pro se supplemental filing adds that counsel’s ineffectiveness led to
numerous errors at trial.
On every point, we conclude otherwise. Rogers’s criminal history was
admissible to prove that he knew about the drugs and firearm found in his house.
See United States v. Ellis, 817 F.3d 570, 579–80 (8th Cir. 2016); see also id. at 580
(noting that limiting instructions mitigate unfair prejudice). The hearsay from the
confidential informant, even if it violated the Confrontation Clause, was harmless
because “the remaining evidence [was] overwhelming.” United States v. Holmes,
620 F.3d 836, 844 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing for harmless error). And the district
court1 did not abuse its discretion by imposing the minimum sentence possible on
each count. See United States v. Woods, 717 F.3d 654, 659 (8th Cir. 2013); see also
21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A); 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(C)(i), (D)(ii). As for the remaining
arguments, raised in the pro se filing, they are premature, see United States v.
Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006) (explaining that ineffective-
assistance claims are “more properly raised in a separate motion under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255”), forfeited, see United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731 (1993) (describing
plain-error review), or meritless, see United States v. Jones, 687 F.2d 1265, 1270
(8th Cir. 1982) (noting that the Constitution does not guarantee a racially
representative jury).
Finally, we have 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 Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District
Court for the District of Nebraska.

-- 2 of 2 --