Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00418/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00418-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE:

THE MATTER OF THE EXTRADITION

OF MARIO PEREZ MONROY

1:06-CV-00418 OWW 

ORDER RE: GOVERNMENT OF UNITED

MEXICAN STATES’ REQUEST FOR

EXTRADITION

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the court at the request of the United

Mexican States ("Mexico") for the extradition of Mario Perez

Monroy ("Monroy"). Mexico is represented by McGregor W. Scott,

United States Attorney, and Kathleen A. Servatius, Assistant

United States Attorney (“Government”). Monroy is represented by

Daniel J. Broderick, Federal Defender, and Robert W. Rainwater,

Assistant Federal Defender.

Before the court for decision is the Government’s request to

extradite Monroy to Mexico filed on July 27, 2006. (Doc. 15-1.) 

Monroy filed an opposition to the Government’s request on July

31, 2006. (Doc. 17.)

II. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

On March 24, 2006, the Honorable Sandra M. Snyder issued a

provisional arrest warrant for Monroy, pursuant to the

Case 1:06-cv-00418-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 08/31/06 Page 1 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Extradition Treaty between the United States and Mexico. (Doc.

15-1 at 1.) Mexico’s formal request for extradition to the

United States Department of State was filed on July 14, 2006. 

(Id.) Mexico has also submitted the following documents with the

state department:

1. Formal documentation for crimes detailed in a warrant of

arrest dated January 30, 2006. (Doc. 13, Government’s request

for Extradition, Volume I, Ex. 13, Filed July 17, 2006);

2. Supplemental information which contains a certified copy

of the warrant for arrest, authenticated and translated into

English, dated July 12, 2006. (Doc. 13, Government’s request for

Extradition, Volume II, Filed July 17, 2006);

3. Supplemental information which contains a certified copy

of the positive identifications of the accused by the witnesses

dated June 13, 2006. (Doc. 13, Government’s request for

Extradition, Volume III., Filed July 17, 2006). 

B. Statement of Facts

Monroy is charged in Mexico with “qualified homicide” under

Articles 126, 147, and 148 of the Criminal Code and the Criminal

Procedures Code of the State of Baja California, United Mexican

States. (Doc. 15-1, Para. 9.) 

On March 5, 2005, Martin Howard Irizar went to visit his

mother, Leticia Irizar Garcia, at her home in Playas de Tijuana

and was unable to locate her. (Doc. 13, Volume I, Ex. 3, P. 63.) 

He noticed the front door was locked from the outside so he

gained access through another door. (Id.) When he went inside,

everything appeared to be in order, but one of the bedroom doors

was closed. (Id.) He assumed it was his mother’s boyfriend

Case 1:06-cv-00418-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 08/31/06 Page 2 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

sleeping and so he left. (Id.) Later that evening, he returned

to the apartment and discovered the that the person “sleeping”

was his mother and she was dead. (Id. at P. 64.) Martin Howard

Irizar immediately informed the Police. (Id.) The medical

examiner determined that Irizar Garcia was killed by manual

strangulation, simulating suicide by anoxemia by hanging, between

the hours of 5:40 and 7:40 a.m. on March 5, 2005. (Id., Ex.11,

P. 110-11.)

Alicia Estela Rivero Suarez, Leticia’s neighbor, revealed to

investigators that on March 4, 2005, Mario, Leticia’s boyfriend,

was coming to visit. (Id., Ex. 7, P. 77.) According to Alicia,

Leticia had informed her that Mario had violent tendencies, was

jealous and aggressive, and on one occasion had threatened to

kill Leticia with a knife. (Id. at P. 76.) Leticia explained

that her children did not like Mario, and she would therefore try

to hide her relationship with him. (Id.) Periodically, Leticia

would ask Mario to leave her apartment when she knew her children

were coming to visit. (Id.) On March 4, 2005, Leticia told

Alicia that Mario had come to her apartment, and that she was

going to make him leave the next morning, because her son was

coming to visit. (Id. at P. 77.) When Mario heard this he got

mad. (Id.)

Between 6 and 7 a.m. on March 5, 2005, Alicia and her

boyfriend heard loud music coming from Leticia’s apartment that

lasted for two or three minutes. (Id.) Alicia’s boyfriend

yelled at his neighbor to turn down the music. (Id.) A couple

minutes later, Alicia observed Mario leave Leticia’s apartment

and sit on the steps with his head in his hands. (Id.) Later

Case 1:06-cv-00418-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 08/31/06 Page 3 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

that morning she observed that the front door of Leticia’s

apartment had been padlocked from the outside. (Id.) 

Leticia had also told Rosalva Montes Ponce, another

neighbor, that Mario was going to stay at Leticia’s place on

March 4, 2005. (Id. at P. 82.) Rosalva also heard loud music

playing for a few minutes in the early morning of March 5, 2005. 

(Id.) At one point, the music was turned down, and Rosalva heard

Leticia moaning; however, she assumed that Leticia was having

sexual relations with Mario. (Id.) Finally, the music had

ended, and Rosalva did not hear anymore noise from her neighbor’s

apartment. (Id.) Leticia had also told Rosalva that Mario was a

jealous person and that on several occasions he had hit Leticia. 

(Id. at P. 83.)

III. LEGAL STANDARD

In order to find Monroy extraditable, the following must be

shown (1) the extradition judge had jurisdiction to conduct

extradition proceedings (2) the extradition court had

jurisdiction over the fugitive (3) the treaty of extradition was

in full force and effect (4) the crime fell within the terms of

the treaty and (5) there was competent legal evidence to support

a finding of extraditability. Prasoprat v. Benov, 421 F.3d 1009,

1013 (9th Cir. 2005). The only purpose of the extradition

hearing is for the judge to determine whether the crime is

extraditable and whether there is probable cause to support the

charge. Id. at 1014. In other words, extradition must be

allowed if there is a reasonable belief that the extraditee

committed the crime and competent evidence supports that belief. 

In re Extradition of Strunk, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1117, 1121 (E.D.

Case 1:06-cv-00418-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 08/31/06 Page 4 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Cal. 2003). “The judge in an extradition proceeding applies a

standard similar to that of a preliminary hearing, determining

whether the evidence justifies holding the accused for trial, not

whether the evidence may justify a conviction.” Id. The

evidence must support probable cause to charge the crime. Id. 

IV. ANALYSIS

A. The Court Has Jurisdiction to Conduct Extradition

Proceedings

18 U.S.C. § 3184 provides that any justice or judge of the

United States is authorized to hear evidence to sustain the

charge under the provisions of the proper treaty. Accordingly

this court has jurisdiction over the extradition proceedings.

B. The Court Has Jurisdiction Over Monroy

The Eastern District court has jurisdiction over the

defendant if they appear before the court. In re Extradition of

Mainero, 990 F. Supp. 1208, 1216 (S.D. Cal. 1997). Monroy is in

custody within the Eastern District of California and has

appeared before the court. 

C. The Treaty is in Full Force and Affect

The law limits extradition to circumstances where the Treaty

is in full force and effect. 18 U.S.C. § 3184. The Department

of State presented a declaration from their Attorney-Adviser

stating that the extradition Treaty between the United States of

America and Mexico was submitted by the Government in support of

its position that the Treaty is presently in full force and

effect. (Doc. 13, Volume I, Ex. 1, P. 1-3.) Attached to the

Declaration was a copy of the diplomatic note as well as a copy

of the Treaty itself. The construction of a treaty by the

Case 1:06-cv-00418-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 08/31/06 Page 5 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

Department of State, while not conclusive upon courts called upon

to construe it, is nevertheless given weight. United States v.

Lombera-Camorlinga, 206 F.3d 882, 887 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing,

Kolovart v. Oregon, 366 U.S. 187, 194 (1961)(while court’s

interpret treaties for themselves, the meaning given them by the

departments of government particularly charged with their

negotiation and enforcement is given great weight).) Thus

deference is given to the State Departments opinion that the

Treaty is in full force and effect. 

D. The Offenses Monroy Is Charged With are Covered by the

Treaty

Article 2 of the Treaty states that “[e]xtradition shall

take place, subject to this Treaty, for willful acts which fall

within any of the clauses of the Appendix and are punishable in

accordance with the laws of both Contracting Parties by

deprivation of liberty the maximum of which shall not be less

than one year.” (Doc. 13, Volume I, Ex.1, P. 22.) The appendix

states “murder or manslaughter” as one of the punishable

offenses. (Id. at P. 36.) Monroy has been charged with the

crime of “Qualified Homicide.” (Id. at 11.) Qualified homicide

is punishable under Article 126 of the Criminal Code and the

Criminal Procedures Code of the State of Baja California, United

Mexican States for sixteen to thirty years of imprisonment. (Id.

at 165.)

The acts underlying the offense are punishable in the United

States as First Degree Murder under the California Penal Code

Sections 187. Cal. Pen. Code § 187. The offense carries a

statutory maximum punishment of death or imprisonment for 25

Case 1:06-cv-00418-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 08/31/06 Page 6 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

years to life. Cal. Pen. Code § 190. Thus, in both countries

the charged offense is punishable by more than one year

imprisonment and is therefore an extraditable offense.

E. Competent Legal Evidence Exists To Support Extradition

The Treaty between the United States and Mexico calls for

probable cause to be measured by the standards established in the

requesting country (Mexico). Article 3 of the Treaty says, in

relevant part “Extradition shall be granted only if the evidence

be found sufficient, according to the laws of the requested

Party, either to justify the committal for trial of the person

sought if the offense of which he has been accused had been

committed in that place.” (Doc. 13, Volume I, Ex.1, P. 23.) The

court need only determine whether there is competent evidence to

justify holding the respondent for trial, not whether the

evidence is sufficient to justify conviction. See, Barapind v.

Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 752 (9th Cir. 2005). The probable cause

standard is flexible. The Supreme Court has acknowledged:

Articulating precisely what "reasonable suspicion" and

"probable cause" mean is not possible. They are

commonsense, nontechnical conceptions that deal with

the factual and practical considerations of everyday

life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal

technicians, act. As such, the standards are not

readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of

legal rules.

Ornelas v. U.S., 517 U.S. 690, 695-96 (1996). Consequently, “the

extradition judge makes credibility determinations as to the

competence of the evidence supporting probable cause.” In re

Singh, 170 F. Supp. 2d 982, 1023 (9th Cir. 2001). “The

credibility of witnesses and the weight to be afforded their

testimony is solely within the province of the extradition

Case 1:06-cv-00418-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 08/31/06 Page 7 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

magistrate.” Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 776, 815 (9th Cir.

1986). 

In a Ninth Circuit case with similar facts, the court

determined that the judge needs to “determine whether there is

any evidence sufficient to establish reasonable or probable cause

that the fugitive committed the offense charged.” In re

Extradition of Kraiselburd, 786 F.2d 1395, 1399 (9th Cir. 1986)

(internal quotations omitted). In Kraiselburd, Alicia Lia Solana

and her mother were found murdered in their home in Bahia Blanca,

Argentina. Id. at 1396. The investigation revealed that the

defendant had threatened the victims because he was angry that

Alicia Solana had spurned him. Id. In finding that the

defendant’s “motive and threats” supported a finding of probable

cause, the court relied on “threatening letters written by

appellant...witness statements alleging that appellant had

threatened either victim...including statements by Alicia's

father, brother, and boyfriend, as well as letters written by

Alicia herself, all reporting threats to Alicia made by

[defendant].” Id. at 1399. 

Monroy agrees that the treaty requires the court to find

probable cause that he committed the alleged crime. However, he

disagrees that the documents submitted by Mexico establish

probable cause. Monroy argues that the evidence merely shows he

was romantically involved with the decedent and that he was seen

in the area around the time of her death. Monroy argues that

this evidence is insufficient to establish probable cause that he

is responsible for her death. Monroy further states that the

Government is only relying on two pieces of evidence: (1) that

Case 1:06-cv-00418-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 08/31/06 Page 8 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

Monroy “appeared to be distraught and upset” when he was seen

coming rom his girlfriend’s apartment (2) and that there was loud

music coming from her apartment to cover her cries. However,

Monroy offers no evidence in his behalf to refute probable cause. 

The Government offers additional evidence not mentioned by

Monroy. As in the case of In re Extradition of Kraiselburd, the

Government has produced witness statements that assert that

Monroy was a jealous boyfriend who got upset when Leticia told

him he would have to leave when her children came over. (Doc. 13,

Volume I, Ex. 3, P. 76-78) Witness statements reveal that Monroy

had a history of violence toward Leticia, had tried to kill her

with a knife, and had made threats to kill her in the past. 

(Id.) This testimony, along with evidence that loud music was

heard coming from Leticia’s apartment, Leticia made moaning

sounds, that Monroy was seen leaving her apartment the morning of

her death, the apartment was locked from the outside, and that

Monroy was aggressive if he saw the victim with anyone else are

sufficient to establish probable cause to hold Monroy for the

charge of qualified homicide and trial in Mexico. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, it is CERTIFIED that the

evidence submitted by the Government of Mexico is sufficient to

establish probable cause to believe that Mario Perez Monroy has

committed the offense of qualified homicide of Leticia Irizar

Garcia. The request for extradition of Monroy by Mexico is

GRANTED. The attorney for the Government of Mexico shall, within

five (5) days following service of this order lodge a

CERTIFICATION OF EXTRADITABILITY to be transmitted to the

Case 1:06-cv-00418-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 08/31/06 Page 9 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

Secretary of State of the United States including: 

1. A certified copy of the CERTIFICATION OF EXTRADITABILITY.

2. A certified copy of this Memorandum Decision and Order.

3. A certified copy of the complaint and Request for

Extradition and exhibits thereto.

4. A warrant shall issue upon the requisition of a duly

authorized representative of Mexico for the surrender of

Monroy.

5. Monroy shall continue to be detained pending final outcome

of these proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2006 

_/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER_________

 Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00418-OWW -SMS Document 19 Filed 08/31/06 Page 10 of 10