USA v. Bernard Rolandas Dixon, No. 15-11431 (11th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-11431 Date Filed: 01/19/2016 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-11431 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 9:14-cr-80167-RLR-2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BERNARD ROLANDAS DIXON, Defendant - Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (January 19, 2016) Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 15-11431 Date Filed: 01/19/2016 Page: 2 of 2 Brian Mallonee, appointed counsel for Bernard Dixon in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of Dixon and prepared a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Dixon’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED. 1 Because the final judgment incorrectly listed the offenses of conviction, we VACATE and REMAND for the limited purpose of correcting this clerical error. Dixon’s conviction as to Count 1 was under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2119(2) and 2, and his conviction as to Count 2 was under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) and 2. Finally, given our resolution of Mallonee’s Anders motion, Dixon’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED AS MOOT. 1 We acknowledge that Dixon expressed dissatisfaction with trial counsel’s performance and that he might wish to argue that his counsel was ineffective. Such claims, however, generally “are not considered for the first time on direct appeal,” but rather are best reserved for postconviction proceedings. United States v. Tyndale, 209 F.3d 1292, 1294 (11th Cir. 2000); see Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504-05 (2003). 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.
