US v. Jean Tognia, No. 12-4365 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4365 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEAN MARIAT TOGNIA, a/k/a Herve Agbleke, a/k/a Leopold Bajjilekin, a/k/a Teopold Bassilekin, a/k/a Agbleke Herve, a/k/a Rymsi Kerve, a/k/a Jean-Pierre Lebeurre, a/k/a Tony Lebeurre, a/k/a Victor Moise, a/k/a Kerve Perin, a/k/a Tognia Perin, a/k/a Tryamsi Perin, a/k/a Ryamsi Rognia, a/k/a Perin Ryamsi, a/k/a Jlerve Tognia, a/k/a Perin Tognia, a/k/a Klerve Perin, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:11cr-00193-RWT-1) Submitted: November 21, 2012 Decided: December 6, 2012 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Meghan S. Skelton, Staff Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Adam Kenneth Ake, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Pursuant Tognia pled to guilty a to written plea conspiracy agreement, to commit Jean bank Mariat fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (2006), and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) (2006). In the plea agreement, Tognia waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence, reserving only the right to appeal a sentence exceeding the range provided by offense level thirteen, plus twenty-four months. Tognia now appeals. His counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning identity whether theft Tognia because the could be individual guilty whose of aggravated identity issue gave Tognia permission to use her identity. was at Tognia was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not filed one. Based on the appellate waiver provision in the plea agreement, the Government has filed a motion to dismiss Tognia s appeal of his conviction and sentence, except to the extent that the appeal challenges the voluntariness of Tognia s guilty plea. We dismiss in part and affirm in part. We review de novo a defendant s waiver of appellate rights. United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). A defendant may waive his right to appeal if that waiver is the result of a knowing and intelligent decision to 3 forgo the right to appeal. United States v. Amaya-Portillo, 423 2005) F.3d 427, omitted). To intelligent, 430 (4th Cir. determine we look whether to the (internal the waiver totality of quotation is the marks knowing and circumstances, including the experience and conduct of the accused, as well as the accused s educational background and familiarity with the terms of the plea agreement. F.3d 389, 400 (4th Cir. United States v. General, 278 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that Tognia knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal his conviction and that the issue his counsel asserts on appeal is within the scope of the waiver. Government s motion to We therefore grant in part the dismiss and Tognia s conviction and sentence. dismiss the appeal of Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no unwaived issues that are meritorious and outside the scope of the waiver. We therefore deny in part the Government s motion to dismiss and affirm. This writing, of court his requires right to that petition United States for further review. counsel the inform Supreme Tognia, Court of in the If Tognia requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for 4 leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Tognia. 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. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
