Medelius-Rodriguez v. Strickland ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6537
OSCAR ELISEO MEDELIUS-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
BONNIE STRICKLAND,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
No. 07-6846
OSCAR ELISEO MEDELIUS-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
BONNIE STRICKLAND,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:06-hc-02123-D)
No. 07-6997
In Re: OSCAR ELISEO MEDELIUS-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Prohibition.
Submitted: September 24, 2007 Decided: October 15, 2007
Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Nos. 07-6537 and 07-6846 affirmed; No. 07-6997 petition denied by
unpublished per curiam opinion.
Oscar Eliseo Medelius-Rodriguez, Appellant/Petitioner Pro se. Eric
David Goulian, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Oscar Eliseo
Medelius-Rodriguez (Medelius) appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), in
which he sought review of a magistrate judge’s order authorizing
his extradition to Peru (No. 07-6537). He also appeals the
district court’s order denying a stay of judgment pending appeal
(No. 07-6846) and seeks a writ of prohibition (No. 07-6997) to
prevent the extradition process from going forward during the
pendency of his habeas appeal. We conclude that the magistrate
judge did not err in finding Medelius extraditable, and we affirm
the district court’s orders denying habeas relief and a stay
pending appeal. We likewise deny the petition for writ of
prohibition.
The United States government seeks to extradite Medelius,
a Peruvian national and former member of Peru’s congress, to face
charges in Peru of falsification of documents and documentary
evidence, misrepresentation, embezzlement, and delinquent
association. The charges against Medelius arise from a scheme to
forge the signatures and fingerprints of actual voters to register
a political party and take part in the 2000 presidential election
to support former Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori.
Upon the filing of a complaint in the district court
seeking certification of the fugitive’s extraditability, a district
- 3 -
court judge or magistrate judge conducts a hearing to determine
whether (1) there is probable cause to believe that the fugitive
has violated one or more of the criminal laws of the country
requesting extradition; (2) the alleged conduct would have been a
violation of criminal law if committed in the United States; and
(3) the requested individual is the one sought by the foreign
nation for trial on the charge at issue. See Peroff v. Hylton, 542
F.2d 1247, 1249 (4th Cir. 1976). A writ of habeas corpus is the
only available means to challenge a magistrate judge’s
certification order. Ordinola v. Hackman, 478 F.3d 588, 598 (4th
Cir. 2007). The scope of habeas corpus review in extradition is
limited, and the magistrate judge’s findings are accorded
substantial deference. Id. at 599. In considering such a habeas
petition, the district court generally determines only whether the
magistrate judge had jurisdiction, whether the charged offense is
within the scope of the applicable treaty, and whether there was
any evidence supporting the probable cause finding. Id.In his appeal, Medelius’s primary contentions are:
(1) the evidence submitted by the Peruvian government does not
support a finding of probable cause; (2) the charged crimes are not
extraditable offenses; (3) the offenses fall within the political
offense exception; and (4) extradition would violate his
- 4 -
constitutional rights.1 We have considered these claims and
conclude the district court did not err in upholding the magistrate
judge’s probable cause determination and affirming the magistrate
judge’s conclusion that the charged offenses are within the scope
of the Extradition Treaty. We also conclude the district court and
magistrate judge both properly concluded that the offenses do not
fall within the political offenses exception to extradition, and
extradition would not violate Medelius’s constitutional rights.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of habeas relief
(No. 07-6537).
Medelius’s second appeal (No. 07-6846) challenges the
district court’s order denying a stay of judgment pending his
habeas appeal.2 In light of our affirmance of the district court’s
denial of habeas relief, we also affirm that court’s denial of
Medelius’s motion for stay pending appeal.
Medelius has also filed a petition for a writ of
prohibition (No. 07-6997), requesting an order prohibiting the
1
To the extent that Medelius raises other issues in his
informal brief on appeal, we conclude those issues lack merit.
2
Although Medelius did not note an appeal from the district
court’s June 8, 2007 order denying a stay pending appeal, his
informal brief challenging that order may properly be considered
the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal from the district
court’s June 8 order. See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248-49
(1992). Because Medelius filed his informal brief within the
thirty-day appeal period following the June 8 order, we have
jurisdiction to consider the issues he raises therein. Smith, 502
U.S. at 248-49.
- 5 -
Secretary of State from making a decision on his extradition, or if
a final decision has been made, prohibiting his surrender to Peru
while his habeas appeal is pending. Again, in light of our
decision in Medelius’s habeas appeal, we deny his petition for a
writ of prohibition.
In sum, we affirm the district court’s orders denying
Medelius’s § 2241 petition (No. 07-6537) and denying a stay of
judgment pending appeal (No. 06-6846). In Appeal No. 07-6537, we
also deny Medelius’s motion to appoint counsel, motion for a
hearing en banc, motion for a stay of judgment, petition for a writ
of prohibition, two motions for emergency relief, and motion for
release on bail pending appeal. In Appeal No. 07-6997, while we
grant Medelius’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we
deny his petition for a writ of prohibition and his motion for
emergency relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Nos. 07-6537 and 07-6846 AFFIRMED
No. 07-6997 PETITION DENIED
- 6 -