US v. Ronnie Dixon, No. 10-5092 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5092 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RONNIE DIXON, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:04-cr-00441-F-1) Submitted: March 18, 2011 Decided: March 24, 2011 Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, James E. Todd, Jr., Research and Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E.B. Holding, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. MayParker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronnie Dixon, who was sentenced to five years probation after pleading guilty in 2005 to failure to pay child support, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 228(a)(3) (2006), appeals the district court s judgment revoking his probation sentencing him to twenty-four months in prison. that his sentence is plainly unreasonable and Dixon argues because: (i) the district court failed to respond to his request for a reduction in his monthly inability to child pay; and support amount (ii) his sufficiently compelling support. based variant on his alleged sentence lacked Finding no error, we affirm the district court s judgment. Upon a finding of a probation violation, the district court may revoke probation and resentence the defendant to any sentence within the statutory maximum for the original offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a) (2006); United States v. Schaefer, 120 F.3d 505, 507 revocation sentences, (4th Cir. 1997). sentences, to determine like if This court supervised they are review[s] probation release revocation plainly unreasonable. United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007). The court first considers whether the sentence is unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir. 2006). This court, in determining reasonableness, follows generally the procedural and substantive considerations employed in reviewing 2 original sentences. Id. However, [t]his initial inquiry takes a more deferential appellate posture concerning issues of fact and the exercise of discretion than reasonableness review for [G]uidelines sentences. Moulden, 478 F.3d at 656 (internal quotation marks omitted). The however. 2010). district court s discretion is not unlimited, United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. For instance, the district court commits procedural error by failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence or by not providing an individualized assessment based on the facts. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). court need revocation not be sentence as as detailed it or must Although "[a] specific be when imposing when imposing a a post- conviction sentence, . . . it still must provide a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed." (internal quotation marks omitted). Thompson, 595 F.3d at 547 The district judge also must set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although the court generally reviews preserved sentencing errors for an abuse of discretion, reversing only if an error is not harmless, this court will review a procedural 3 sentencing error raised for the first time on appeal for plain error. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 575-79 (4th Cir. 2010). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court committed no error, plain or otherwise, when it imposed Dixon s conclude that twenty-four-month Dixon s sentence is sentence. not Accordingly, plainly we unreasonable. Moulden, 478 F.3d at 656. We dispense thus with affirm oral the district argument because court s the judgment. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
