United States v. Dijon Dixon, No. 19-3110 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Beam and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Anders case. Defendant's appeal of his sentence is foreclosed by his appeal waiver, and the appeal is dismissed. [ May 06, 2020 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-3110 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. Dijon T. Dixon lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City ____________ Submitted: May 4, 2020 Filed: May 7, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Dijon Dixon appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to a firearm offense, pursuant to a binding plea agreement containing an appeal 1 The Honorable Beth Phillips, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. waiver. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We conclude that Dixon’s appeal of his sentence is foreclosed by the appeal waiver. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers). As to the potential claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct that counsel also discusses in the Anders brief, Dixon has not identified any support in the record for a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, and we defer any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel for collateral proceedings. See United States v. McAdory, 501 F.3d 868, 872 (8th Cir. 2007) (this court ordinarily defers ineffective-assistance claims to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings). Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion and dismiss this appeal. ______________________________ -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.
