Victor Childs v. Steven Stafford

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR ERNEST CHILDS, No. 12-55795
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-02690-W-NLS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
STEVEN C. STAFFORD, United States
Marshal for the Southern District of
California,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Thomas J. Whelan, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 9, 2013
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER, RAWLINSON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Victor Ernest Childs (Childs) appeals the district court’s denial of his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his pending extradition on a
Mexican arrest warrant. We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1. The magistrate judge’s finding of probable cause was supported by
sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the charge as alleged in the extradition
request. The magistrate judge relied on witnesses’ statements, and reliance on the
statements was permissible. See Manta v. Chertoff, 518 F.3d 1134, 1146 (9th Cir.
2008) (recognizing that unless the relevant treaty provides otherwise, the usual
rules of evidence do not apply to extradition proceedings). The magistrate judge
also considered a ballistics report confirming that the firearm found in Childs’
possession was the same weapon that fired the bullets retrieved from his wife’s
head. Even without Childs’ statement, the record provides sufficient competent
evidence to support a finding of probable cause that Childs committed aggravated
homicide as charged. See Sainez v. Venables, 588 F.3d 713, 717 (9th Cir. 2009)
(upholding a magistrate judge’s probable cause finding).
2. The district court correctly determined that its review of the
magistrate judge’s probable cause determination was limited to consideration of
whether: 1) the magistrate judge had jurisdiction over the proceeding and over
Childs; 2) the operative treaty was in effect and the alleged offense was within the
terms of the treaty; and 3) there was competent evidence supporting the magistrate
judge’s probable cause determination. See Manta, 518 F.3d at 1140. Childs
2
contends that his extradition would violate due process because the American law
enforcement officials who interrogated him did so in violation of Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Childs’ claim fails because his statements to law
enforcement officials related solely to a foreign prosecution, and “concern with
foreign prosecution is beyond the scope of the [Fifth Amendment’s] Self-
Incrimination Clause.” United States v. Balsys, 524 U.S. 666, 669 (1998).
Therefore, Childs’ due process rights would not be violated by his extradition to
Mexico. See Mickey v. Ayers, 606 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2010) (rejecting
extraditee’s due process claim predicated on incriminating statements).
AFFIRMED.
3