United States v. Derrick Dixon
698 F. App'x 116
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Derrick Lamont Dixon pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2).
- Under the Guidelines Dixon’s range was 24–30 months; the district court imposed an upward variant sentence of 57 months.
- Facts the court relied on: Dixon allegedly committed a hit-and-run and then pointed a gun at the occupants of the other vehicle (including a toddler) while they tried to follow him.
- The district court emphasized Dixon’s extensive juvenile and adult criminal history, including weapons offenses, and that he actively used the firearm.
- The court expressly considered the § 3553(a) factors (seriousness, just punishment, deterrence, protection of the public) in explaining the upward variance.
- On appeal Dixon’s counsel filed an Anders brief; the Fourth Circuit reviewed for procedural and substantive reasonableness and affirmed the conviction and 57‑month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness of sentence | Dixon argued (via counsel) that the sentence may be procedurally unreasonable if the court failed to consider § 3553(a) or relied on erroneous facts | Government defended sentence as procedurally sound and properly explained | Court held no procedural error: district court considered § 3553(a) factors and gave an adequate explanation |
| Substantive reasonableness / extent of upward variance | Dixon argued the 57‑month upward variant was greater than necessary to satisfy § 3553(a) goals | Government argued the variance was justified by the offense conduct and Dixon’s criminal history | Court held the 57‑month sentence was substantively reasonable and not greater than necessary given the factors and below statutory maximum |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (standards for counsel’s brief when claiming no meritorious appellate issues)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness review of sentences)
- United States v. McDonald, 850 F.3d 640 (4th Cir. 2017) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentence review)
- United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 2014) (review considers totality of circumstances for substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Bolton, 858 F.3d 905 (4th Cir. 2017) (review of variant sentences and extent of variance)
- United States v. Hernandez-Villanueva, 473 F.3d 118 (4th Cir. 2007) (upholding a sentence significantly above Guidelines when § 3553(a) factors supported it)