United States v. Danny Dixon , 476 F. App'x 438 ( 2012 )

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted August 22, 2012*
Decided August 24, 2012
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge
No. 12-1848 Appeal from the United
States District Court for
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the Central District of
Plaintiff-Appellee, Illinois.
v. No. 03-CR-20027
Michael P. McCuskey,
DANNY L. DIXON, Judge.
Defendant-Appellant.
Order
Danny Dixon filed a motion for a sentence reduction after the Sentencing
Commission made a retroactive change in the Guideline for crack-cocaine
offenses. The district court reduced his sentence from 360 months to 348 months.
He had asked the judge to cut the sentence to 324 months and has appealed from
the adverse decision.
*
This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b).
After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary.
See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f)
No. 12-1848 Page 2
His lawyer has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 264(1967). Counsel observes that district judges have substantial discretion to choose
the amount (if any) of a reduction under a retroactive Guideline and that
appellate review is deferential. The district judge concluded that a further
reduction would be inappropriate because Dixon has shown contempt for the
law during his time in prison. He has been disciplined for multiple offenses,
including assaulting other prisoners with homemade weapons. These events,
plus Dixon's extensive record before the current conviction and the fact that he
became a fugitive after release on bail, led the district court to conclude that a
long sentence remains necessary for both deterrence and incapacitation.
Dixon was invited to respond to counsel’s brief but did not do so. We
agree with counsel’s evaluation of this appeal. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is
granted, and the appeal is dismissed as frivolous.