Balzan v. United States
3:11-cv-01155
N.D. Tex.Sep 21, 2011Background
- Petitioner Balzan filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging an extradition certification.
- Respondent United States sought extradition to Argentina for allegedly fraudulent theft.
- The magistrate judge held a hearing on May 10, 2011 and issued a Certification and Committal for Extradition.
- The petition contends the offense in Argentina is not extraditable because the Texas maximum may be under one year.
- The court applies limited habeas review and determines whether there is competent evidence supporting the extradition findings.
- The recommendation is to deny Balzan’s petition with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the offense is extraditable under dual criminality. | Balzan argues no dual criminality because value evidence is lacking. | Respondent asserts the act in Argentina is extraditable and exceeds one-year maximum. | Extraditable under dual criminality. |
| Whether the value of stolen goods establishes a Texas maximum imprisonment of over one year. | Balzan claims insufficient evidence that goods were worth >$1,500. | Argentina theft packet shows substantial value and supports ~one-year term. | Competent evidence supports extradition; weight of evidence not reviewable. |
| Scope of review in extradition matters. | Extradition petition merits full reweighing of evidence. | Extradition proceedings are administrative; no reweighing of evidence. | Habeas review is limited; court cannot reweigh the evidence. |
| Judicial standard for reviewing certification for extradition. | Certification should be reversed if not proven extraditable. | Certification proper if probable cause and treaty criteria are met. | Certification supported; petition denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Collins v. Loisel, 259 U.S. 309 (U.S. 1922) (extraditable offenses require acts criminal in both countries)
- Spatola v. United States, 741 F.Supp. 362 (E.D.N.Y. 1990) (extradition proceedings are administrative; weight not reviewed)
- Ntakirutimana v. Reno, 184 F.3d 419 (5th Cir. 1999) (limited habeas review in extradition challenges)
- Garcia-Guillern v. United States, 450 F.2d 1189 (5th Cir. 1971) (review limited to jurisdiction, treaty scope, probable cause)
- Fernandez v. Phillips, 268 U.S. 311 (U.S. 1925) (searching the dual-criminality concept in extradition)