United States v. Dixon, No. 10-3644 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of aiding and abetting a bank robbery and sentenced to 220 months imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, that the district court erred in failing to dismiss a potentially biased juror, that the district court procedurally erred in imposing his sentence, and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. The court held that, in light of the overwhelming evidence, the government provided more than sufficient evidence that defendant affirmatively participated in the bank robbery. The court also held that defendant's claim that the district court committed reversible error by failing to sua sponte dismiss the prospective juror was without merit because the venireman did not sit on the jury, neither defendant's statutory right to exercise peremptory challenges, nor any constitutional right was violated. The court further held that the sentencing transcript reflected that the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and adequately explained the basis of defendant's sentence; the record did not support defendant's assertions that the district court erred by failing to explain its rationale for the disparity between his and co-defendant's sentence; there was no procedural error in the district court's refusal to grant a downward departure; and defendant's claim that the district court imposed an unreasonably lengthy sentence was rejected. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Evidence was sufficient to support bank robbery conviction; prospective juror whose objectivity defendant questions was stricken from the panel and neither defendant's right to exercise peremptory challenges nor his constitutional rights were violated; district court provided an adequate explanation for its sentencing decisions; refusal to grant a downward departure was unreviewable; sentence was not substantively unreasonable.
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.