United States v. Duane Rogers
700 F. App'x 538
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Duane G. Rogers fled Colorado the night before his state sexual-assault trial and went to Mexico, where he joined a timeshare telemarketing fraud that victimized 87 people of over $300,000.
- Rogers, a disbarred attorney, helped create fake escrow paperwork and presented himself as a trusted agent for roughly two months.
- He was arrested, convicted and sentenced in Colorado for the sexual-assault offense. In the Northern District of Illinois he pleaded guilty to wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343.
- The presentence guidelines produced a range of 51–63 months; the district court imposed 47 months’ imprisonment plus three years of supervised release and assessed one criminal-history point for a 2003 Colorado DUI.
- Rogers’s appellate counsel moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, concluding any appeal would be frivolous; Rogers did not contest the plea or respond to the Anders brief.
- The Seventh Circuit granted counsel’s motion and dismissed the appeal after reviewing and rejecting potential appellate issues (plea validity, guideline calculations, minor-role reduction, §5K1.1 departure, criminal-history point, consecutive sentence, and supervised release).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness/adequacy of guilty plea | N/A (Rogers does not seek to withdraw plea) | Challenge plea colloquy or voluntariness | Not raised; counsel appropriately declined to contest plea validity |
| Guidelines: loss and substantial-financial-hardship enhancements | District court correctly applied enhancements based on victims’ losses and hardships | Argue enhancements were erroneous | Forfeited by failure to object; no plain-error basis apparent |
| Role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 | N/A | Rogers sought minor-participant reduction | Meritless: Rogers was not substantially less culpable than average participant |
| Motion for downward departure for substantial assistance (§5K1.1) | Government properly declined greater departure | Argue government should have moved for departure | Frivolous: Rogers’s cooperation added little to government’s existing information |
| Criminal-history point for Colorado DUI | N/A | Argue DUI should not count due to state-law BAC differences | Meritless: Guidelines count DUIs regardless of state classification |
| Concurrent vs. consecutive sentence (18 U.S.C. § 3584) | Federal fraud unrelated to state sex-offense; consecutive term justified | Argue consecutive sentence was an abuse of discretion | Affirmed: district court acted within discretion to impose consecutive sentence |
| Imposition of supervised release | Federal supervised release aids restitution enforcement | Argue federal supervised release is duplicative given Colorado parole conditions | Affirmed: judge provided valid reasons; supervised release warranted and within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (standards for counsel’s motion to withdraw when appeal appears frivolous)
- United States v. Bey, 748 F.3d 774 (7th Cir. 2014) (Anders brief facial adequacy and scope of appellate review)
- United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2002) (declining to challenge an unwithdrawn guilty plea in Anders context)
- United States v. Thi, 692 F.3d 571 (7th Cir. 2012) (standard for minor-participant reduction under § 3B1.2)
- United States v. Leiskunas, 656 F.3d 732 (7th Cir. 2011) (comparative culpability analysis for role reductions)
- United States v. Billings, 546 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 2008) (substantial-assistance departure when defendant adds little to government’s knowledge)
- United States v. Statham, 581 F.3d 548 (7th Cir. 2009) (district court discretion to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences)
- United States v. Bloch, 825 F.3d 862 (7th Cir. 2016) (reasoning about supervised release and sentencing explanations)