`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`No. 21-4346
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`
`
`MICHAEL ANTHONY TOLER,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff - Appellee,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendant - Appellant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
`Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:20-cr-00008-JPB-JPM-1)
`
`
`
`
`Submitted: January 20, 2022
`
`
`
`Decided: January 24, 2022
`
`
`
`Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
`
`
`Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
`
`
`
`
`Scott C. Brown, SCOTT C. BROWN LAW OFFICE, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
`Appellant. Shawn Michael Adkins, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
`UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
`
`
`
`
`Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
`
`
`
`
`
`PER CURIAM:
`
`Michael Anthony Toler pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to
`
`possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
`
`(b)(1)(C). The district court sentenced Toler to 46 months’ imprisonment. On appeal,
`
`Toler’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
`
`concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
`
`Toler’s guilty plea is valid. Although he was informed of his right to do so, Toler has not
`
`filed a pro se supplemental brief. For the following reasons, we affirm.
`
`Because Toler did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, we
`
`review the validity of his plea for plain error. United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622
`
`(4th Cir. 2016). Prior to accepting a guilty plea, the district court, through a colloquy with
`
`the defendant, must inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands,
`
`the charge to which the plea is offered, any mandatory minimum penalty, the maximum
`
`possible penalty he faces upon conviction, and the various rights he is relinquishing by
`
`pleading guilty. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b). The district court also must ensure that the
`
`defendant’s plea was voluntary, was supported by a sufficient factual basis, and did not
`
`result from force or threats, or promises not contained in the plea agreement. Fed. R. Crim.
`
`P. 11(b)(2), (3). In reviewing the adequacy of compliance with Rule 11, “[w]e accord
`
`deference to the trial court’s decision as to how best to conduct the mandated colloquy with
`
`the defendant.” United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 295 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal
`
`quotation marks omitted). We have reviewed the Rule 11 colloquy and conclude that the
`
`district court did not plainly err by accepting Toler’s plea.
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have
`
`found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.
`
`This court requires that counsel inform Toler, in writing, of the right to petition the
`
`Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Toler 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 Toler.
`
`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
`
`
`
`3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
