United States v. Anthony Dixon, No. 16-3303 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Arnold and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not commit any significant procedural error or impose an unreasonable sentence. [ February 24, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3303 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Anthony Lovon Dixon lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: February 21, 2017 Filed: February 27, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Anthony Dixon appeals after he pleaded guilty to failing to register as a sex offender and the district court1 sentenced him to 30 months in prison, a term within 1 The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. the calculated Guidelines range. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We remind counsel of their obligation in filing an Anders brief. Such a brief must be done as an advocate for the appellant, not the government, and should refer to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Evans v. Clarke, 868 F.2d 267, 268 (8th Cir. 1989). Nonetheless, we read counsel’s brief as questioning the reasonableness of Dixon’s prison term. Dixon has not filed a supplemental brief. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not commit any significant procedural errors or impose a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1076-77 (8th Cir. 2012) (discussing appellate review of sentencing decisions); see also United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014) (on appeal, within-Guidelines-range sentence may be presumed reasonable). In addition, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm. ______________________________ -2-
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.
