2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-16-2005

Toussaint v. Klem

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 05-1580

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Toussaint v. Klem" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1183.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1183
DPS-197 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 05-1580

________________

PATRICK TOUSSAINT,

 Appellant

 v.

EDWARD KLEM, SUPERINTENDENT;

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA;

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

_____________________________________

On Appeal From the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 03-cv-00927)

District Judge: Honorable James McGirr Kelly

_______________________________________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 

April 14, 2005

Before: ROTH, BARRY and SMITH, Circuit Judges

(Filed: May 16, 2005)

_______________________

OPINION

_______________________

PER CURIAM

Patrick Toussaint appeals from a District Court order dismissing a motion for bail

pending appeal. Because no substantial question is presented, we will summarily affirm. 

See L.A.R. 27.4.
 We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 1

In 1996, Toussaint was convicted of several counts of rape and one count each of

kidnaping and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse. He was sentenced to seven to

twenty years imprisonment. In October of 2002, Toussaint filed a petition under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 asserting four claims for relief. The District Court denied the petition and

Toussaint appealed. On December 21, 2004, we denied a certificate of appealability

(COA) and terminated the proceedings. See Toussaint v. Klem, C.A. No. 04-2073.

In early 2005, Toussaint petitioned this Court to reconsider the denial of the COA. 

The petition is still currently pending. Meanwhile, on January 24, 2005, Toussaint moved

the District Court for bail pending appeal. The District Court dismissed the motion with

prejudice because we denied a COA and the case was closed. 

1

 We exercise plenary review over the denial of bail pending appeal. See United

States v. Smith, 793 F.2d 85, 87 (3d Cir. 1986). Toussaint not only fails to show any

“extraordinary circumstances” requiring bail pending appeal, see Landano v. Rafferty,

970 F.2d 1230, 1239 (3d Cir. 1992) (citations omitted) (providing the standard), but he

fails to present any argument even remotely relating to bail.

Accordingly, because no substantial question is presented, we will summarily

affirm the order of the District Court.