
    UNITED STATES of America v. James Hilton AYODEJI, Appellant.
    No. 04-4695.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Jan. 17, 2007.
    June 20, 2007.
    Daryl F. Bloom, Office of United States Attorney, Harrisburg, PA, for United States of America.
    John F. Pyfer, Jr., Pyfer & Reese, Lancaster, PA, for James Hilton Ayodeji.
    PRESENT: McKEE, AMBRO, and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

The forgoing Motion is granted. The not precedential opinion issue on January 26, 2007 is hereby retracted. A redacted opinion will be issued as the opinion previously issued contained certain personal data identifiers. The Clerk is directed to contact the publishers of the legal reporters and the University of Villanova School of Law regarding the retraction of this opinion. The retraction and issuance of a redacted opinion does not modify the judgment issued by the Court.

REDACTED OPINION OF THE COURT

STAPLETON, Circuit Judge.

Appellant, James Hilton Ayodeji, is the subject of a final order of removal. A jury found him guilty of hindering his removal from the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1)(C) and of making a false statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the government of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). These charges arose out of Ayodeji’s refusal to provide information necessary to the execution of the order of removal and his continued insistence that he is another individual named Ernest E. Grayson.

Appellant’s counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

We have reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel for the government and the appellant that there are no non-frivolous issues presented by this appeal. The government presented ample evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that Ayodeji is not Ernest E. Grayson and that he had hindered his removal by refusing to supply information and fingerprints necessary to secure valid travel documents. We perceive no trial or sentencing errors.

We are satisfied that Ayodeji’s counsel has adequately fulfilled the requirements of Rule 109.2, and his motion to withdraw will be granted. The issues presented in this appeal lack legal merit and thus do not require the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court.

The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.  