Cases

U NITED S TATES AIR F ORCE C OURT OF C RIMINAL APPEALS ________________________ No. ACM S32533 ________________________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Michelle M. RODGERS Airman First Class (E-3), U.S. Air Force, Appellant _________

CCA 20150706. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted, and the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

CCA 20150706. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file the supplement to the petition for grant of review granted to May 1, 2017.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ricky Maritique Rodgers seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A

CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting: The police acted admirably, reasonably, and lawfully throughout the events giving rise to this case. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. The initial stop of the car was lawful. Officer Moody testified that there was a stark difference between the color listed on the car registration records and the actual color of the car. Officer Moody, an experie

PER CURIAM: Carson Darrell Rodgers appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Rodgers, No. 1:02-cr-00374-WO-2 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 14, 2011). We deny Rodgers’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispe

610 F.3d 975 (2010) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert RODGERS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 09-3364. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued April 2, 2010. Decided July 9, 2010. Monica Mallory (argued), Office of the United States Attorney, Rockford, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee. *

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Kevin Dwayne Rodgers has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Rodgers has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for le

PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Kevin Dwayne Rodgers has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Rodgers has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for le

PER CURIAM: Carson Darrell Rodgers appeals from a district court order adopting the magistrate judge’s order to deny Rodgers leave to exceed that court’s twenty-page limit on his brief in support of his § 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocut

OPINION MOORE, Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant, Anthony Rodgers (“Rodgers”), appeals his conviction by jury on charges of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113, and use of a firearm during a violent felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Rodgers raises two issues on appeal. First, he asserts that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial after at le

PER CURIAM:* Larry Chris lies, 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, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (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 has filed a response to counsel’

186 F.Supp.2d 971 (2002) UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, v. Calvin W. RODGERS, Defendant. No. 01-CR-37. United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin. February 8, 2002. *972 Dean A. Strang, for Plaintiff. Brian J. Resler, for Defendant. DECISION ADELMAN, District Judge. After being indicted f

5(&200(1'(' )25 )8//7(;7 38%/,&$7,21 3XUVXDQW WR 6L[WK &LUFXLW 5XOH  (/(&7521,& &,7$7,21  )(' $SS 3 WK &LU )LOH 1DPH DS 81,7('67$7(6&28572)$33($/6 )257+(6,;7+&,5&8,7 BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 81,7(' 67$7(6 2) $0(5,&$ ; 3ODLQWLII$SSHOOHH    1R Y

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 00-1030 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEANDER RODGERS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. No. 97 CR 108--John Daniel Tinder, Judge. Argued January 12, 2001--Decided April 5, 2001 Before RIPPLE, ROVNER, and EVANS, Circuit Judges. ROVNER, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Leander Rodgers of conspiring to po

F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit PUBLISH MAR 11 1997 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

In the United States Court of Federal Claims MELODY J. RODGERS, Plaintiff, No. 21-cv-00793 v. Filed: April 30, 2021 THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. Melody J. Rodgers, Jacksonville, NC, pro se. Brian M. Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Martin F. Hockey, Jr., Acting Director, Robert E. Kirs

51 F.3d 1044 U.S.v.Rodgers* NO. 94-50318 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. Mar 23, 1995 Appeal From: W.D.Tex., No. A-93-CR-147(1) 1 AFFIRMED.

37 F.3d 637 U.S.v.Rodgers** NO. 93-6721 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. Sept 28, 1994 1 Appeal From: M.D.Ala. 2

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.