Patrick Toussaint v. Edward Klem, Superintendent

DPS-197 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

-- 1 of 2 --

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.

-- 2 of 2 --