The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
15-1682•United States of America v. Anthony Lovon Dixon
15-1682Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitFeb 28, 2017
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[Unpublished]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 court sentenced him to 30 months in prison, a term within1
The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the1
Western District of Missouri.
-- 1 of 2 --
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-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.