USA v. Willie Dixon, No. 14-13462 (11th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-13462 Date Filed: 11/18/2015 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-13462 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-20370-CMA-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus WILLIE DIXON, a.k.a. Smack, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (November 18, 2015) Before WILSON, JORDAN, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 14-13462 Date Filed: 11/18/2015 Page: 2 of 3 The government appeals Willie Dixon’s 27-month sentence, imposed after he pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court held that Dixon’s prior conviction for burglary of an unoccupied dwelling under Fla. Stat. § 810.02(3)(b) was not a “crime of violence” within the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) and thus could not be used to calculate Dixon’s base level offense under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1. The government challenges this finding, asserting Dixon’s burglary conviction is a crime of violence under the “residual clause” of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2). In response, Dixon argues the residual clause is unconstitutionally vague and, even if the clause is constitutional, the conviction is not a crime of violence under the clause. We recently addressed this exact issue in United States v. Matchett, No. 1410396, __ F.3d __ (11th Cir. 2015). Matchett held the residual clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) is constitutional and that burglary of an unoccupied dwelling under Fla. Stat. § 810.02(3)(b) falls within the scope of the clause. 1 Matchett, No. 1410396, at *8–*9. Accordingly, the district court erred in finding Dixon’s burglary conviction was not a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2). We 1 In Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), the Supreme Court held the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) is unconstitutionally vague. We interpret the ACCA’s residual clause “in the same manner as we interpret” the residual clause in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2). Matchett, No. 14-10396, at *6. As such, relying on Johnson, the defendant in Matchett argued the residual clause of U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) is unconstitutional. We rejected this argument. Matchett, No. 14-10396, at *8. 2 Case: 14-13462 Date Filed: 11/18/2015 Page: 3 of 3 therefore vacate Dixon’s sentence and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. VACATED AND REMANDED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
