UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4134

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM SEDRICK ROLLERSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:11-cr-00230-RJC-1)

Submitted: July 31, 2013 Decided: August 26, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henderson Hill, Executive Director, Joshua B. Carpenter, FEDERAL 

DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Asheville, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Sedrick Rollerson pleaded guilty, without a 

plea agreement, to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e) (2006). The 

district court sentenced Rollerson to 180 months’ imprisonment. 

On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no 

meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether 

Rollerson’s sentence violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments 

because the district court increased the term of imprisonment 

based on facts not proved beyond a reasonable doubt pursuant to 

the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), and whether the district 

court erred in finding that Rollerson was an armed career 

criminal. Rollerson was informed of his right to file a pro se 

supplemental brief, but he has not done so. Following a careful 

review of the record, we affirm.

Counsel first questions whether Rollerson was 

improperly sentenced beyond the statutory maximum based on facts 

not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, this argument is 

foreclosed by the clear precedent of this court and the Supreme 

Court. Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-

27, 247 (1998); United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 283 

(4th Cir. 2005).
3

Counsel next questions whether the district court 

correctly concluded that Rollerson qualified for the enhanced 

penalties of the ACCA pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (2006). We 

review a district court’s determination of whether prior 

convictions qualify as predicate convictions for purposes of the 

ACCA de novo. United States v. Brandon, 247 F.3d 186, 188 (4th 

Cir. 2001). A defendant convicted of being a felon in 

possession of a firearm who has three prior convictions for a 

violent felony or serious drug offense is subject to sentencing

as an armed career criminal. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1); USSG 

§ 4B1.4. A violent felony is a “crime, punishable by a term 

exceeding one year of imprisonment, . . . that . . . has as an 

element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force 

against the person of another.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i)-

(ii). A serious drug offense is “an offense under the 

Controlled Substances Act . . . for which a maximum term of 

imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law.” 18 

U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(i). Our review of the record leads us to 

conclude that Rollerson has at least three qualifying 

convictions, and that the district court properly determined 

that Rollerson was an armed career criminal. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire 

record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Our 

review of the record confirms that the district court 
4

substantially complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 

11 in accepting Rollerson’s guilty plea, and ensured that his 

plea was knowing and voluntary. We therefore affirm Rollerson’s 

conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel 

inform Rollerson, in writing, of his right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If 

Rollerson 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 

Rollerson. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED