Case: 15-11431 Date Filed: 01/19/2016 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]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:
Case: 15-11431 Date Filed: 01/19/2016 Page: 2 of 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).
2