Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-04155/USCOURTS-ca4-08-04155-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jarrod Kevin Dixon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4155

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JARROD KEVIN DIXON, a/k/a Jerod,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.

(4:02-cr-00441-TLW-1)

Submitted: June 2, 2008 Decided: June 25, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per

curiam opinion.

William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender,

Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Reginald I. Lloyd, Rose

Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorneys, Florence, South

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-4155 Doc: 19 Filed: 06/25/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

On January 29, 2003, Jarrod Kevin Dixon was sentenced to

seventy-one months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised

release after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a

firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). On December

13, 2007, the district court found Dixon in violation of the terms

and conditions of his supervised release and sentenced him to

twenty-four months’ imprisonment - the statutory maximum - and an

additional one year term of supervised release. 18 U.S.C.

§ 3559(a)(3) (2000); 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West 2000 & Supp.

2007). On appeal, Dixon asserts that the district court plainly

erred in sentencing him to an additional year of supervised

release. The Government agrees and has filed a motion to remand

for resentencing. 

On January 26, 2002, when Dixon committed the underlying

offense, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h) permitted reimposition of supervised

release only if the district court imposed less than the maximum

prison term for a defendant’s supervised release violation. Thus,

because the active prison term imposed upon Dixon for violation of

supervised release was the statutory maximum, the imposition of an

additional one year term of supervised release on Dixon constituted

plain error that affected his substantial rights. United States v.

Castorani, 88 F. App’x 552 (4th Cir. 2004) (unpublished) (citing

United States v. Maxwell, 285 F.3d 336, 342 (4th Cir. 2002).

Appeal: 08-4155 Doc: 19 Filed: 06/25/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s finding that Dixon

violated the terms of supervised release, vacate the sentence

imposed by the district court, and remand for resentencing. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED

IN PART, AND REMANDED

Appeal: 08-4155 Doc: 19 Filed: 06/25/2008 Pg: 3 of 3