UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

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;
3

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1.1(a)(8) (1993) (repealed effective Oct. 1, 1994) (“A Class H 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)).
4

conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED