United States of America v. Toriano Hoivey Blocker

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4506
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TORIANO HOIVEY BLOCKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:07-cr-00466-CMC-l)
Submitted: May 18, 2009 Decided: June 3, 2009
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cameron B. Littlejohn, Jr., Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellant. Stanley Duane Ragsdale, Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Toriano Hoivey Blocker pled guilty pursuant to a
written plea agreement to knowingly using or carrying a firearm
during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2006) (Count Three), and conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine
base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846
(2006) (Count Five). Blocker was sentenced to 270 months in
prison. Blocker appealed.
Counsel for Blocker filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether
the district court properly conducted Blocker’s guilty plea
hearing. Blocker has filed a pro se supplemental brief.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea
in the district court, we review for plain error the adequacy of
the guilty plea proceeding under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. United
States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Our
examination of the record shows that the district court fully
complied with the requirements of Rule 11. Further, Blocker’s
plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered, and
supported by a factual basis. We therefore find no error.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We have reviewed Blocker’s pro se informal brief and
find no merit to his claims. 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. This court requires that counsel inform Blocker, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Blocker requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for
leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel=s motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on Blocker.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --