Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-11431/USCOURTS-ca11-15-11431-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bernard Rolandas Dixon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-11431

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:14-cr-80167-RLR-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BERNARD ROLANDAS DIXON, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(January 19, 2016)

Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 15-11431 Date Filed: 01/19/2016 Page: 1 of 2
2

Brian Mallonee, appointed counsel for Bernard Dixon in this direct criminal 

appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of Dixon and prepared 

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent 

review of the record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the 

appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no 

arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and 

Dixon’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.

1

 

Because the final judgment incorrectly listed the offenses of conviction, we 

VACATE and REMAND for the limited purpose of correcting this clerical error. 

Dixon’s conviction as to Count 1 was under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2119(2) and 2, and his 

conviction as to Count 2 was under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) and 2. Finally, 

given our resolution of Mallonee’s Anders motion, Dixon’s motion for the 

appointment of new counsel is DENIED AS MOOT.

 1 We acknowledge that Dixon expressed dissatisfaction with trial counsel’s performance 

and that he might wish to argue that his counsel was ineffective. Such claims, however, 

generally “are not considered for the first time on direct appeal,” but rather are best reserved for 

postconviction proceedings. United States v. Tyndale, 209 F.3d 1292, 1294 (11th Cir. 2000); see 

Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504-05 (2003). 

USCA11 Case: 15-11431 Date Filed: 01/19/2016 Page: 2 of 2