United States v. Anthony Dixon , 678 F. App'x 453 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                  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    [Unpublished]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 court1 sentenced him to 30 months in prison, a term within
    1
    The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the
    Western District of Missouri.
    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-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-3303

Citation Numbers: 678 F. App'x 453

Judges: Arnold, Colloton, Kelly, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 2/27/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024