United States v. Toussaint

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: October 9, 2024
• Docket: 24-3031
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-3031 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 10/09/2024 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 9, 2024 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 24-3031 (D.C. No. 5:22-CR-40069-TC-1) LATAVIA TUCHE TOUSSAINT, (D. Kan.)

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before PHILLIPS, MURPHY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Ms. Latavia Toussaint pleaded guilty to making a false statement in a

passport application in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542. At sentencing, she sought

and received a time-served sentence with no supervision to follow. Despite not

objecting in the district court to any part of the plea process or her sentence,

she now appeals her conviction and sentence.

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 24-3031 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 10/09/2024 Page: 2

After Toussaint timely filed her appeal, her attorney in this court filed an

Anders brief, asserting that the appeal lacked any meritorious basis and moving

to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45 (1967)

(outlining withdrawal process based on a frivolous appeal). Toussaint was

twice notified of her counsel’s Anders brief, and she was given extra time to

explain why her appeal is not frivolous, but she declined to do so. Likewise, the

government declined to file a response brief.

Under Anders, this court must “conduct a full examination of the record

to determine whether defendant’s claims are wholly frivolous.” United States v.

Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 930 (10th Cir. 2005). “If the court concludes after

such an examination that the appeal is frivolous, it may grant counsel’s motion

to withdraw and may dismiss the appeal.” Id.

Having fully examined the record, we conclude that any appellate

challenges on this direct-appeal record would be frivolous. We detect no issues

with Toussaint’s conviction or the plea colloquy. And any issue related to her

time-served, no-supervision sentence is moot given that she has completed the

sentence and is not subject to any sentencing-related collateral consequences.

United States v. Sandoval-Enrique, 870 F.3d 1207, 1210 (10th Cir. 2017).

2 Appellate Case: 24-3031 Document: 34-1 Date Filed: 10/09/2024 Page: 3

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1), we

grant the motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal.

Entered for the Court

Gregory A. Phillips Circuit Judge