Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-95-06244/USCOURTS-ca10-95-06244-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS . FILED 

Uruted States Court of App., .. • ... Tenth Circuit -...... 

TENTH CIRCUIT APR 3 0 1996 

PATR!CKFISHEn Cl~r~~ IN TilE MATIER OF THE 

EXTRADITION OF CHARLES PHILLIP 

SMITH, 

Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Appellee. 

No. 95-6244 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR TilE WESTERN DIS1RICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C. No. CIV-95-507-A) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Irven R. Box of Box & Box, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellant. 

Patrick M. Ryan, United States Attorney, H. Lee Schmidt, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellee. 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges. 

TACHA, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 95-6244 Document: 01019279380 Date Filed: 04/30/1996 Page: 1 
Appellant appeals1 the district court's denial ofhabeas relief, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, from 

the magistrate judge's decision certifying appellant's extraditability, ~ 18 U.S.C. § 3184, 

to stand trial for manslaughter in the Republic of Germany.2 This court will review the 

district court's legal determinations de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. Theron 

v. United States Marshal, 832 F.2d 492, 495 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1059 

(1988); see also In re Extradition of Howard, 996 F.2d 1320, 1327-28 (1st Cir. 1993). The 

scope of habeas corpus review of a magistrate judge's extradition order under a treaty with 

a foreign country is limited to determining whether the magistrate judge had jurisdiction, 

whether the offense charged is within the treaty, and, by somewhat liberal construction, 

whether there was any evidence warranting finding that there was a reasonable ground to 

believe the accused was guilty. Brauch v. Raiche, 618 F.2d 843, 847 (1st Cir. 1980)(citing 

Femaodezy. Phillips, 268 U.S. 311,312 (1925)). 

Appellant first argues that the evidence presented to the magistrate judge was 

insufficient to establish probable cause to believe appellant is the individual who committed 

A certificate of probable cause is granted. 

2 After exammmg the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. 

~Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted 

without oral argument. 

2 

Appellate Case: 95-6244 Document: 01019279380 Date Filed: 04/30/1996 Page: 2 
the crime in question. Upon our careful review of the record, it is clear that there was 

sufficient evidence to support a "reasonable belief' that appellant was guilty of the crime 

charged. ~Austin v. Healey, 5 F.3d 598, 605 (2d Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1192 

(1994). 

Appellant's next argument, that extradition would violate his constitutional right to 

equal protection because under the applicable treaty, Germany can refuse to extradite its 

citizens, while the United States cannot, is unavailing. ~Escobedo v. United States, 623 

F.2d 1098, 1106-07 & 1107 n.26 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1036 (1980) and 450 U.S. 

922 (1981). 

Lastly, appellant argues that extradition would violate his constitutional right to a fair 

trial, in light of the permissible use of hearsay statements in German courts. This court, in 

reviewing a certification of extraditability, will not inquire into the fairness of the requesting 

nation's justice system. In re Extradition ofHoward, 996 F.2d at 1329. 

"When an American citizen commits a crime in a foreign country, he cannot 

complain if required to submit to such modes of trial and to such punishment 

as the laws of that country prescribe for its own people, unless a different 

mode be provided by treaty stipulations between that country and the United 

States." 

Yaw y. Reno, 26 F.3d 1562, 1565 (11th Cir. 1994)(quotingNeely y. Henkel, 180 U.S. 109, 

123 (1901)). Therefore, when an American citizen is tried in a foreign country, he is entitled 

only to the procedural protections accorded by the applicable foreign law, subject to 

3 

Appellate Case: 95-6244 Document: 01019279380 Date Filed: 04/30/1996 Page: 3 
whatever additional protections may be available to him under treaty stipulations between 

that country and the United States. lih 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of 

Oklahoma is, therefore, AFFIRMED. 

4 

Appellate Case: 95-6244 Document: 01019279380 Date Filed: 04/30/1996 Page: 4