USA v. Dixon, No. 07-10418 (5th Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 07-10418 Conference Calendar December 11, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. JIMMIE LEE DIXON Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:97-CR-84-1 Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Jimmie Lee Dixon, federal prisoner # 29531-077, was convicted of robbery, attempted robbery, assault with a short-barreled shotgun, using and carrying a short-barreled shotgun in relation to a kidnapping, and kidnapping for the purpose of committing aggravated sexual abuse. He appeals the district court s denial of his post-judgment motion to question jury members. He argues that the district court erred by denying his motion because the jury was exposed to a prejudicial exhibit admitted into evidence at his trial. He additionally asserts * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 07-10418 that the district court erred by denying his previously filed 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. For the first time on appeal he argues that his convictions should be vacated because the trial judge was biased against him. We do not consider Dixon s claim that the trial judge was biased against him because it is raised for the first time on appeal of the denial of a collateral attack upon his convictions. See Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir. 1998). This appeal is from the denial of a meaningless, unauthorized motion. United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, it is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 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.