United States v. Valeriano-Valles ( 2003 )

  •                                                         United States Court of Appeals
                                                                     Fifth Circuit
                                                                  F I L E D
                            FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                  June 20, 2003
                                                               Charles R. Fulbruge III
                              No. 02-50760 c/w
                                No. 02-50761
                              Summary Calendar
              Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Western District of Texas
             USDC No. P-99-CR-39-2 and USDC No. P-01-CR-362
    Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
         Ernesto Luis Valeriano-Valles appeals his guilty-plea
    convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
    marijuana and for importation of marijuana in violation of 21
    U.S.C. § 846.
         Valeriano asserts that the district court erred when it
    denied his motion to suppress the indictment because the district
    court lacked jurisdiction due to his abduction by force by
            Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
    except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
    R. 47.5.4.
                               No. 02-50760 c/w
                                No. 02-50761
    Mexican authorities and delivery to the United States Government.
    He asserts that his abduction violated due process and the terms
    of the Extradition Treaty between the United States and Mexico,
    31 U.S.T. 5059, 5065 (May 4, 1978).
         This court adheres to the Ker-Frisbie doctrine, set forth in
    Ker v. Illinois, 
    119 U.S. 436
    , 440 (1886), and Frisbie v.
    342 U.S. 519
    , 522 (1952), which provides that due
    process is not denied by a court’s assumption of jurisdiction
    over a defendant who is forcibly brought before the court.          See
    United States v. Wilson, 
    732 F.2d 404
    , 410-11 (5th Cir. 1984).
    Valeriano relies on United States v. Toscanino, 
    500 F.2d 267
    , 275
    (2d Cir. 1974), and asserts that his case warrants an exception
    to the Ker-Frisbie doctrine.    This court has not accepted
    Toscanino as a departure from the Ker-Frisbie doctrine.       See
    Wilson, 732 F.2d at 411.    Moreover, Valeriano has not established
    that the district court erred when it concluded that the facts he
    alleges are not supported by the record.
         Valeriano’s argument that the district court lacked
    jurisdiction because his abduction violated the extradition
    treaty between the United States and Mexico is also without
    merit.   See United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 
    504 U.S. 655
    , 664-
    70 (1992) (the United States/Mexico extradition treaty does not
    prohibit international abductions), and United States v. Chapa-
    62 F.3d 118
    , 120 (5th Cir. 1995) (“A criminal defendant
    abducted to the United States from a nation with which it has an
                            No. 02-50760 c/w
                             No. 02-50761
    extradition treaty does not acquire a defense to the jurisdiction
    of this country’s courts.   The language of this country’s treaty
    with Mexico does not support the proposition that abductions are
    prohibited outside its terms.”) (citations omitted).
         The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.