Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-08-02633/USCOURTS-ca8-08-02633-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jacardo Omar Dixon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2633

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Jacardo Omar Dixon, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 22, 2009

Filed: January 11, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jacardo Omar Dixon appeals the district court’s1

 judgment, entered after a jury

found him guilty of distributing 4.37 grams of cocaine base on May 28, 2003, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), and distributing 5.62 grams of

cocaine base on June 17, 2003, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B),

both after having been previously convicted of a felony drug offense. The district

court sentenced him to 150 months in prison and 8 years of supervised release.

Dixon’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

Appellate Case: 08-2633 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/11/2010 Entry ID: 3622824
-2-

arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. In a pro se

supplemental brief, Dixon argues that the district court plainly erred in instructing the

jury on aiding and abetting.

We hold that the evidence was sufficient to support Dixon’s convictions. See

United States v. Birdine, 515 F.3d 842, 844 (8th Cir. 2008) (this court reviews

sufficiency of evidence in light most favorable to government, resolving evidentiary

conflicts in government’s favor and accepting all reasonable inferences that support

jury’s verdict). Officer Joshua Lupkes testified that a confidential informant (CI) set

up drug transactions in recorded phone calls, and Lupkes drove the CI to the

transactions both times, and personally handed Dixon $500 during the first

transaction. The CI testified that he got drugs from Dixon on both occasions and gave

Dixon $500 in the second transaction. Officer Chip Joecken testified that he followed

and made a traffic stop of the car in which the second transaction took place, and the

passenger identified himself as Dixon and gave his birth date, social security number,

address, and phone number (which was the same phone number the CI had called to

set up the transactions). Joecken took a picture of Dixon, but did not arrest him. The

parties stipulated to the drug amounts and to Dixon’s prior drug conviction. See

United States v. Hernandez 569 F.3d 893, 896 (8th Cir. 2009) (to sustain conviction

for distribution of controlled substance, government must prove defendant knowingly

and intentionally distributed controlled substance, and knew it was controlled

substance at time of distribution).

We also hold that the district court did not plainly err in instructing the jury on

an aiding-and-abetting theory. See United States v. Aleman, 548 F.3d 1158, 1166 (8th

Cir. 2008) (this court affirms so long as instructions, taken as whole, fairly and

adequately submitted issues to jury), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2756 (2009); United

States v. Starr, 533 F.3d 985, 997 (8th Cir.) (no error where defendant is convicted as

aider or abetter even though such allegation is not included in indictment), cert.

denied, 129 S. Ct. 746 (2008); United States v. Refert, 519 F.3d 752, 756 (8th Cir.

Appellate Case: 08-2633 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/11/2010 Entry ID: 3622824
-3-

2008) (where defendant did not challenge jury instructions below, review is for plain

error).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, the judgment

is affirmed. We also grant counsel leave to withdraw, and deny Dixon’s motions for

new appellate counsel.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 08-2633 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/11/2010 Entry ID: 3622824