US v. William Rollerson, No. 13-4134 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4134 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIAM SEDRICK ROLLERSON, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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 Rollerson s sentence appeal, violated the but Fifth questioning and Sixth whether 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 criminal. in finding that Rollerson was an armed career 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). 2 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). review a district court s determination of whether We prior convictions qualify as predicate convictions for purposes of the ACCA de novo. Cir. United States v. Brandon, 247 F.3d 186, 188 (4th 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 § 4B1.4. career criminal. 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1); USSG 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 against the person of another. (ii). A serious drug threatened use of force 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i)- 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. U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(i). conclude that convictions, and Our review of the record leads us to Rollerson that 18 has the at district least court three qualifying 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. review of the record confirms 3 that the district Our court substantially complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 in accepting Rollerson s guilty plea, and ensured that his plea was knowing and voluntary. conviction inform and sentence. Rollerson, Supreme Court Rollerson of We therefore affirm Rollerson s This court in writing, of the United States requests that a his requires that right petition the review. If to for further be filed, petition but counsel 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. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
