United States v. Deangelo Dixon, 790 F.3d 758

Deangelo Dixon was convicted of two armed bank robberies and sentenced to life under §3559(c)(1)(A) based on prior robbery convictions classified as "serious violent felonies."
At trial a witness revealed she had seen a photograph of Dixon before testifying; defense counsel did not recall the witness or use the photograph at trial.
The robberies involved Dixon brandishing long‑neck butane lighters and threatening to shoot; no actual firearm was used and no one was injured.
The government charged and the jury convicted under §2113(d) (use of a dangerous weapon or device), but evidence suggested the items were lighters rather than firearms.
On appeal Dixon argued Brady was violated by late disclosure, that prior convictions must be found by a jury for sentencing, that the lighters were not "dangerous weapons or devices," and he sought the §3559(c)(3)(A) affirmative defense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Brady disclosure timing	Brady violated because witness saw photo before trial and disclosure occurred during trial	Government: Brady requires disclosure, not pretrial discovery; disclosure at trial sufficed	Disclosure at trial satisfied Brady since the information was disclosed in time to be used at trial
Use of prior convictions at sentencing	Prior convictions must be submitted to jury for sentence enhancement	Government: Almendarez‑Torres controls; prior convictions are sentencing facts for judge	Court applied Almendarez‑Torres and rejected Dixon’s Sixth Amendment jury‑finding claim
Whether lighters constitute "dangerous weapon or device" under §2113(d)	Lighters cannot be "dangerous weapons or devices" as a matter of law	Government argued lighters could be treated as weapons because tellers might have believed they were guns	Court held the items were better characterized as intimidation under §2113(a); modified conviction to §2113(a) rather than §2113(d)
§3559(c)(3)(A) affirmative defense (no weapon or threat)	Dixon argued tellers were not credible and defense could meet clear‑and‑convincing standard	Government: Dixon threatened to use a firearm; testimony supports that threat, so defense fails	Court held Dixon could not meet the statutory clear‑and‑convincing standard; threats involving statements like “I’m gonna shoot” preclude the defense

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor's duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622 (2002) (Brady is a disclosure requirement distinct from discovery rights)
Almendarez‑Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998) (prior convictions may be treated as sentencing facts)
McLaughlin v. United States, 476 U.S. 16 (1986) (reasons an unloaded handgun is a "dangerous weapon" under §2113(d))
United States v. Washington, 109 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 1997) (statutory affirmative defense under §3559(c)(3)(A) barred where threats of a gun were made)
United States v. Hargrove, 201 F.3d 966 (7th Cir. 2000) (discussing toy guns and fear‑inducing objects in §2113 context)
Evans v. Circuit Court, 569 F.3d 665 (7th Cir. 2009) (distinguishing Brady disclosure from broader discovery obligations)