The interests of Mexico were represented by the United States through the United States Department of Justice, by United States Attorney Alan D. Bersin and Assistant United States Attorney Gonzalo P. Curiel. emilio valdez mainerospiral pattern printing in c. phillies front office salaries Opinion for Matter of Extradition of Mainero, 950 F. Supp. The Department of Justice shall prepare a certification consistent with this memorandum as required by 18 U.S.C. Columna. EMILIO VALDEZ MAINERO was represented by retained counsel Michael Pancer. Gerardo Cruz Pacheco, a former presidential security guard, told Mexican officials he helped the gunmen escape after the Holiday Inn murder by forming a wall of cars as they drove off. Concerning the murder and firearms charge, it is alleged that on April 9, 1996, at approximately 9:30 p.m., in the restaurant at the Holiday Inn in Toluca, Mexico, Jesus Gallardo Vigil, aka "El Bebe", (hereinafter "Gallardo"), and Jesus Sanchez Angulo (hereinafter "Sanchez") were shot and killed by Respondent and Fabian Martinez Gonzalez, aka "Tiburon", (hereinafter "Martinez"). Mexico also cites the medical examination of Soto following the September 27, 1996 statements concluding that there were no traces of any recent physical wounds. In the Matter of Extradition of Emilio Valdez Mainero,950 F. Supp. In the proceeding before this Court, the Republic of Mexico (hereafter Mexico), through the United States government, seeks the extradition of United States citizen, EMILIO VALDEZ MAINERO, alleged to have committed crimes in Mexico. "The rationale is that such matters are to be determined solely by the executive branch." Miranda added that the motivation for assassination was that Gallardo had threatened Gabriel Valdez Mainero (Emilio Valdez Mainero's brother) with a firearm.[26]. United States v. Manzi, 888 F.2d 204, 206 (1st Cir. Background. The Republic of Mexico seeks to extradite Valdez to answer the following charges: (1) Carrying a firearm exclusive to the Army, Navy and Air Force on or about April 9, 1996 in violation of Article 83, Section II, in accordance with Article 11, Section (b), of the Federal Law of Mexico on Weapons and Explosives;[10]. Cruz identifies photographs numbered 53, 54 and 55, respectively as depictions of Respondent Valdez. Fernandez v. Phillips,268 U.S. 311, 45 S. Ct. 541, 69 L. Ed. On September 30, 1996, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California, acting on behalf of the Republic of Mexico, presented to the Honorable Anthony Battaglia, United States Magistrate Judge, a complaint and a formal extradition request for Emilio Valdez Mainero (hereinafter "Valdez" or "Extraditee"). Article 11, itself, cites that urgency to arrest and detain an individual supports this initial procedure. (5) There is probable cause that a crime or crimes were committed and that the Respondent participated in or committed them. A Supplemental Complaint was filed and Respondent was arraigned thereon on October 16, 1996. In contesting the accuracy of the statement of the federal prosecutor, he "rejects" the alias described to him, the reported rank in the infantry, and claims that he does not belong to the Presidential General staff but to the Presidential Guards Corps. Ultimately, Article 9 of the Treaty invests the "executive authority" with the final discretion.[17]. Buscar. Only the criminal association (conspiracy) and murder charges satisfy the dual criminality requirement for extradition. *1220 At approximately 9:30 p.m., Cruz, who was about twenty meters away from the entrance of the Holiday Inn heard several firearms shots. Cruz also said he transported weapons used in Ibarras slaying. The complaint . Oen Yin-Choy v. Robinson, 858 F.2d 1400, 1407 (9th Cir.1988). Informacin de El Universal. It was not until October 2, 1996 that Soto described the alleged torture to the judge in Mexico. View phone numbers, addresses, public records, background check reports and possible arrest records for Emilio Valdez. There is no authority that exists that requires a magistrate judge to authorize compelled disclosures of explanatory information. Therefore, the Court will certify the above and all documents admitted into evidence to the Secretary of State. [29] Clearly, Alejandro's testimony is based upon his personal knowledge derived from his acquaintance with Respondent and the other individuals named and his discussion and observations in their presence. The statement by Cruz to the federal prosecutor did indicate that Cruz had suffered recent physical injury. The proper authority for the political decision here is, of course, the Secretary of State. In fact, in the statement to the district judge on October 2, 1996, Mr. Soto indicates that he has no physical defects. The indicia of reliability is clearly on the November 30, 1996 deposition offered in Mexico's case in chief. Among the young people recruited by Mexican drug trafficking were Emilio Valdez Mainero, son of a presidential guard, Alfredo . In the proceeding before this Court, the Republic of Mexico (hereafter Mexico), through the United States government, seeks the extradition of United States citizen, EMILIO VALDEZ MAINERO, alleged to have committed crimes in Mexico. Republic of France v. Moghadam,617 F. Supp. En septiembre de 2002, el Juzgado Cuarto de Procesos Penales Federales en el Estado de Mxico (antes Juzgado Primero de Distrito . Miranda was granted "use immunity" for giving the statement. 30), he requests discovery regarding the statement by Miranda. Neely v. Henkel, supra. 5.1 is without authority and is unavailable in any event under prevailing authority. An injury to the anterior upper third of his right leg is claimed to have resulted from a fight with an unknown person. [2] An analysis under Parretti v. United States, 112 F.3d 1363 (9th Cir.1997) decided May 6, 1997 and amended August 29, 1997, well after the issuance of the provisional arrest warrant in this case, is unnecessary given the timely filing of the certified documents. No case authority is offered in this regard. "El Lobo" tambin fue capturado en los Estados Unidos junto con el tijuanense Emilio Valdez Mainero "El Radioloco", ambos extraditados a Mxico en enero de 1998 y tambin remitidos a Almoloya de Jurez. Lee tambin "Narcos Mxico 3": Bad Bunny ser un narcojunior del Cartel de Tijuana. Defense counsel was provided for Mr. Cruz. Valdez relies on Gallina v. Fraser, 278 F.2d 77, 78 (2d Cir.1960), cert. Miranda also stated that in 1992, Valdez was in charge of cocaine trafficking, and that later, Valdez trafficked in 200 to 400 kilogram shipments of marijuana for the AFO. The documents were filed by Mexican authorities seeking extradition of two men -- Emilio Valdez Mainero, 32, and Alfredo Hodayan Palacios, 25 -- alleged to be hit men for the Arellano Felix brothers. [36] A recantation of Francisco Cabrera Castro is also filed and argued to support Respondent's position. In the Ruiz statement, it appears that Soto was arrested at least no later than September 15, 1996. The Court is not required to decide guilt or innocence, but only determines whether there is competent legal evidence to justify holding the accused for trial in the charging country. They are: (1) The Statement of October 12, 1996 at 1:00 a.m. in Mexico City; and. The Court finds that the videotapes do show a cooperating witness. His body was found in Osmun Lake in Pontiac on June 7, 2018 but no arrests were made until April 8 of this year. United States ex rel Sakaguchi v. Kaulukukui, 520 F.2d 726, 730-731 (9th Cir.1975). 526/2019. The videotapes clearly demonstrate Alejandro's demeanor. The record is overwhelming with eyewitness testimony,[20] autopsies and physical evidence from the scene to establish these facts. Emami v. United States District Court for N. District of California, 834 F.2d 1444, 1453 (9th Cir.1987). The Ninth Circuit recognizes that barring hearsay from extradition hearings would thwart one of the objectives of bilateral extradition treaties by requiring the requesting nation to send its citizens to the extraditing country to confront the accused. Mxico, DF - Era el nico de los altos mandos de los Arellano Flix a quien . In Matter of Extradition of Lui Kin-Hong,939 F. Supp. Soto contends that he was arrested on September 12, 1996 and held in custody for some weeks. Martinez instructed Contreras and Cruz to drive a navy blue Cutlass to the Holiday Inn in Toluca. Emilio Valdez Mainero met Ramn Arellano at a posada before Christmas 1986 in the Lomas de Aguacaliente neighborhood. As a result, the accomplice argument does not negate reliability in this instance, nor does it defeat admissibility. Emilio Valdez Mainero and Alfredo Hodoyan were linked to the Arellano Felix drug organization, which controls the lucrative drug corridor from Baja California into the United States. Each "recantation" is essentially a denial of the former statement(s) in their entirety and an allegation of torture and abuse at the hands of the Mexican authorities. In the Matter of the Extradition of Contreras,800 F. Supp. There is no credible evidence supporting the authenticity of this summary of testimony in the closed investigation in Mexico. 956 (1922). 442 (S.D.Cal.1990). Another court has correctly characterized the above sentence from the Second Circuit as "dicta." At the time of the June 30, 1997 hearing, a typed translation of Alejandro's personal notes was offered. In Shapiro v. Ferrandina,355 F. Supp. Jhirad v. Ferrandina, 536 F.2d 478 (2d Cir.1976). The United States has also offered statements from interviews between Alejandro and federal agents in February of 1997 which are asserted to corroborate Alejandro's knowledge of the AFO and his willingness to cooperate. Seguir Leyendo "Siempre estaba preocupada por el avance de mi divorcio, me la pasaba marcando y visitando a mi abogado. Conspiracy to commit a crime is an extraditable offense under Article 2(4) (a) of the Treaty. 777 (N.D.Cal.1985). On September 30, 1996, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California, acting on behalf of the Republic of Mexico, presented to the Honorable Anthony Battaglia, United States Magistrate Judge, a complaint and a formal extradition request for Emilio Valdez Mainero (hereinafter "Valdez" or "Extraditee"). 956 (1922). Background. In this regard, Respondent cites Article 11, Paragraph 3 of the Treaty. Homicide is an extraditable offense under Article 2(1) and Appendix Part 1 of the treaty. [40] U.S.-MEXICO DRUG WAR: Two Systems Collide, New York Times, July 22, 1997. The long list of challenges to the probable cause finding in Mexico and the other alleged infirmities are not fully set forth herein as the Court finds the opinions of Attorney Gastelum are irrelevant to these proceedings. EMILIO VALDEZ MAINERO was represented by retained counsel Michael Pancer. [41] The statement of Francisco Cabrera Castro, aka "Piedras" is offered in the Extradition of Alejandro Hodoyan Palacios, 96mg1828 AJB. No charges have been filed against Anaya, and he denies the allegations. Emilio Valdez Mainero declara que en mayo de 1992, l, Arturo "Kitty" Pez Martnez, Fabin Martnez Gonzlez "El Tiburn", David Barrn Corona y Jorge Alonso, fueron a buscar para matarlo, a Ricardo Olmos; que despus que lo localizaron como usuario de un taxi, se emparejaron al vehculo y Valdez y Barrn descendieron del . Some federal and local officials said the mens statements are not credible because they are clear attempts to land a sweetheart deal. Bingham v. Bradley,241 U.S. 511, 36 S. Ct. 634, 60 L. Ed. Finally, he contests the date of arrest. R.Crim.P. 1996) on CaseMine. Background. The others drove in a white Volkswagen. [22] The individuals related to this case are often referred to in the evidence by nicknames. Nobody threatens my brother because the moron who does it, dies.". The government's request for the stay was denied sustaining Respondent's objection and request to proceed. Barrett v. United States, 590 F.2d 624 (6th Cir. Collins v. Loisel,259 U.S. 309, 315-317, 42 S. Ct. 469, 66 L. Ed. *1226 In the final analysis, the Ruiz declaration is inadmissible given the lack of authenticity, certification or reliability and does little to support the recantations of Soto and Cruz. [18] In the original request, Mexico sought extradition on the firearm offense related to events and circumstances alleged to have occurred on April 13, 1994. These statements do not add a great deal to Mexico's case regarding this Respondent. Certainly, the decision to act upon this type of evidence rests upon some indicia of authenticity and reliability. (2) Gustavo Miranda Santacruz. Mexico more correctly characterizes the Ruiz statement as a summary of statements by Seargent Ruiz. Case Number: 97CR2149 JM (S.D. [10] The firearms charge initially asserted by Mexico and related to the events on or about April 13, 1994 appears to have been abandoned. denied, 405 U.S. 989, 92 S. Ct. 1251, 31 L. Ed. Additionally, it is not the business of the United States Courts to assume responsibility for supervising the integrity of a judicial system of another sovereign nation; such an assumption would directly conflict with the principal of comity on which extradition is based. 568 (S.D.N.Y.1979). The statements of three admitted members of the organization are contained in extradition papers for Emilio Valdez Mainero, an alleged Arellano henchman arrested in the United States. [26] In Respondent's REPLY TO GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE RE: EXTRADITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY (Docket No. 3184, et seq., the United States issued a provisional arrest warrant for the Respondent, signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on September 30, 1996. Sebastian Gutierrez Jaime, Olga Patricia Gonzalez Garcia, Juan Manuel de la Cruz and Pablo Garcia Martinez. Los narcojuniors . The request for a provisional arrest is based, in significant part, upon the existence of a warrant for the fugitive's arrest issued in the district of the authority making the request and charging the fugitive with a commission of crime for which his extradition is sought to be obtained. Terlinden v. Ames,184 U.S. 270, 22 S. Ct. 484, 46 L. Ed. 2d 208. [15] The later supplementation of the record and the supplementation of Mexico's request for extradition, with additional charges, are not inconsistent with the Treaty or its provisions. Alejandro provides an unrestrained narrative discussion of various events and circumstances, prompted by periodic questions and all simultaneously recorded in an office on CPU's. The Court may act upon unsworn statements of absent *1223 witnesses, although they could not have been received by the judge under the law of the state in a preliminary examination. Valdez was a 2016 graduate of Warren Mott High School who had moved to Pontiac. 96-1798-M. United States District Court, S.D. Zanazanian v. United States, 729 F.2d 624, 626-27 (9th Cir.1984). The credible evidence, satisfies Mexico's burden in this respect[44]. 1 Since there is no right of appeal from extradition orders, Valdez and Hodoyan filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus in . 1028, 1049 (S.D.N.Y.1990); Republic of France v. Moghadam, 617 F.Supp. Los jvenes que cayeron en las garras de los hermanos Arellano Flix fueron: Emilio Valdez Mainero, hijo de un guardia presidencial, Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios, hijo de un empresario, Eduardo Len, los hermanos Endir y Henain Meza Castaos, Gustavo Miranda Santa Cruz y Fabin Martnez. [45] The thought of testimony coerced by torture is certainly abhorrent and inconsistent with tenets of our society. [13] The documents themselves do not have to filed in court by the 60 day period, only received by the United States. If reliable, the recantations and the Ruiz statement would be evidence which would undermine the voluntariness of the statements offered by Mexico in their case in chief, and as a result, the evidence in support of probable cause for extradition. Entre los narcojuniors reales de Tijuana tambin estaba Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios, hijo de un empresario prominente en la ciudad . 830 (1911). For the reasons set forth in footnote 32 an extended analysis of the recantation is not set forth, nor is the recantation viewed any differently than those of Cruz and Soto. According to testimony given to Mexican authorities, the Arellanos _ led by brothers Benjamin, Ramon, Javier and Francisco _ have been able to coordinate major assassinations with the aid of the attorney general of Baja California, Jose Luis Anaya Bautista. 3187 allow for the provisional arrest and detention of a fugitive in advance of the presentation of formal proofs. Valdez also faces charges of arranging the sale of a kilogram of heroin to a fellow inmate through friends outside prison. 834 F.2d 1444, 1453. November 4, 1997. Evidence that conflicts with that submitted on behalf of the demanding party is not permitted, nor is impeachment of the credibility of the demanding country's witnesses. The papers have provided a behind-the-scenes look at an assassination already widely believed to be the work of the Arellanos. Pursuant to an extradition treaty between Mexico and the United States, Treaty 31 UST 5059, TIAS 9656 ("Treaty"), and under federal laws supplementing and implementing such treaties, 18 U.S.C. The testimony of Miranda, taken by Assistant United States Attorney Curiel, corroborates the substance of the evidence collected at the *1228 scene and statements by non-involved witnesses. The case against the implicated juniors spilled into U.S. courts after the Sept. 30 arrest of Emilio Valdez Mainero, 32, the baby-faced son of a deceased army colonel from Tijuana who, his widow . [8] Additional written argument was entertained from counsel and submissions in this regard were completed on October 14, 1997. Finally, Respondent filed FINDINGS OF MEXICAN LAW EXPERT RODOLFO GASTELUM PEREZ RE: ABSENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE; SYNOPSIS; AND CURRICULUM VITAE which asserted procedural, substantive and constitutional infirmities under Mexican law in the extradition request and in the arrest warrant. Again, no more precise recantation of the specific events exists. 3184, Ward v. Rutherford, 921 F.2d 286, 289 (D.C.Cir.1990) and Rule 74 of the Local Civil Rules of the United States District Court of the Southern District of California. In the Matter of the EXTRADITION OF Emilio Valdez MAINERO. Background. In Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 776, 815 (9th Cir.1986), the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed that hearsay evidence that would be inadmissible for other purposes is admissible in extradition hearings. Valdez told Contreras, "Wait for me here and when you see us leave the parking lot in the white Volkswagen, make a wall so that we won't be followed". These latter efforts resulted in the formulation of the March 3, 1997 "declaration.". It is alleged that Respondent was involved in criminal activities within the Arellano-Felix drug trafficking organization (hereinafter AFO). The witnesses go on to attribute a number of other incidents based upon their personal knowledge occurring since 1994 which are competent for a finding of probable cause on this charge as well. BATTAGLIA, District Judge. (quoting Sindona v. Grant, 619 F.2d 167, 174 (2d Cir.1980)). 1462, 1464 (S.D.Tex. Emilio Valdez Mainero (Valdez) and Alfredo Hodoyan Palacios (Hodoyan) were certified as extraditable to Mexico on charges of murder and criminal association with the Arellano Felix drug trafficking organization (AFO). [27] Soto actually made a series of statements relative to this matter. Nobody threatens my brother because the moron who does it, dies."[12]. 12). Valdez and Martinez drove off in the white Volkswagen and Cruz and Contreras followed them in a navy blue Cutlass.[24]. These three were carrying short range firearms in a white Volkswagen. October 21, 1996. [1] Valdez was identified or described at various times and by different persons or in documentary evidence with nicknames or aliases. The principle argument regarding changed circumstances is the existence of the practice of torture by Mexican authorities. The power to make treaties is constitutionally invested in the executive branch of the United States government. The various activities included a number of incidents of transportation of illegal drugs and homicide. Respondent also challenges compliance with the Treaty, and urges his release in these proceedings, relative to the "late filing" of certified documents in this case. The contours of the extradition proceeding were shaped by the Treaty and statute. There is no legal support for a judicially created "humanitarian exception" in an extradition proceeding. It is further argued that there is a strong motivation on behalf of the Hodoyan family to help Respondent and this would give rise to questions with regard to the trustworthiness of the document. A review of the evidence submitted in support of those charges meets the requirements regarding identity and probable cause sufficient to fulfill the fifth extradition requirement.