Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard Rolandas DIXON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-01-19
Citations: 632 F. App'x 585
Docket Number: No. 15-11431
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard Rolandas DIXON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 632
Pages: 585–585

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard Rolandas DIXON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-11431.
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Jan. 19, 2016.
Wifredo A. Ferrer, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL Rinku Talwar Tribuiani, Robert H. Waters, Jr., U.S. Attorney’s Office, West Palm Beach, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Brian H. Mallonee Law Office of Brian H. Mallonee Fort Pierce, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before MARTIN, JILL PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
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, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (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.
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.
. 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, 123 S.Ct. 1690, 155 L.Ed.2d 714 (2003).