United States v. James Conyers , 457 F. App'x 229 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4138
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES JUNIOR CONYERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (7:10-cr-00037-D-1)
Submitted: December 2, 2011 Decided: December 8, 2011
Before GREGORY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, James E. Todd, Jr., Research
and Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Junior Conyers appeals the 180-month sentence
imposed following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by
a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006).
Conyers’ counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious
grounds for appeal but questioning whether the district court
erred in designating Conyers as an armed career criminal.
Conyers was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief but did not file one. Finding no error, we affirm.
The sole issue raised in counsel’s Anders brief is
whether the district court properly designated Conyers as an
armed career criminal. Counsel argues that, although Conyers’
breaking and entering convictions were punishable by more than
one year of imprisonment at the time Conyers was sentenced for
those offenses, they were no longer punishable by more than one
year of imprisonment at the time Conyers was sentenced for the
present offense. As counsel acknowledges, this argument is
foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in McNeill v.
United States, 131 S. Ct. 2218 (2011), in which the Court held
that “[t]he plain text of [the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA)]
requires a federal sentencing court to consult the maximum
sentence applicable to a defendant’s previous . . . offense at
the time of his conviction for that offense.” Id. at 2221-22;
2
see also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-54(a) (1993) (providing that
breaking and entering is Class H felony); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-
1.1(a)(8) (1993) (repealed effective Oct. 1, 1994) (“A Class H
felony shall be punishable by imprisonment up to 10 years, or a
fine or both.”); United States v. Bowden, 975 F.2d 1080, 1085
(4th Cir. 1992) (finding that North Carolina crime of breaking
and entering qualifies as “burglary” under ACCA). Therefore, we
conclude that the district court properly designated Conyers as
an armed career criminal. *
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment and deny
Conyers’ motion to substitute counsel. This court requires that
counsel inform Conyers, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If
Conyers requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in
this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Conyers. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
*
Because McNeill forecloses this portion of counsel’s
argument, we need not address counsel’s remaining argument under
United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc)
(overruling United States v. Harp, 406 F.3d 242 (4th Cir.
2005)).
3
conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4