*2
provides:
part, Section
pertinent
TRASK, Circuit Judge, Dissenting:
alleged to
have committed
“A
not
juvenile delinquency shall
do
find section 5036 so ambiguous
*3
of the
proceeded against
court
be
requires
that it
the construction the majori-
the Attorney
unless
Gener-
United States
give
ty here
it.
In construing section
certifies
al,
investigation,
after
to
5036, the majority refers to section 5032.
court of the United
district
propriate
provides
5032
Section
that a juvenile shall
the
court or other
States
proceeded against
in any court of the
(1)
of a
appropriate court
“unless the Attorney Gener-
or
jurisdiction
refuses to assume
al,
investigation,
after
certifies to an appro-
said
over
with re-
jurisdiction
priate district court of the United States”
to such
spect
court
that a state
does not have jurisdiction
(2)
quency, or
does not have available
to
jurisdiction
or refuses
assume
over the
adequate
the
programs and services
for
juvenile. This certification is required to
juveniles.”
needs
give jurisdiction to the United States Dis-
trict Court. While it is an action triggering
construction of
5036 which would
Section
device
the
authorizes
of the
federal
require
30-day
the
district
-
proceed,
court to
certification does
the
not an-
to the time
United States
prior
swer the
of how detention
pur-
proceeded against
could have
poses of
5036 shall be
nor
measured.
practical
statutory
neither
sense.
makes
effectively
two
be
har-
The
Detention is a fact determination
monized, however, by
holding that
30-
Here,
issue.
separate
the certification was
(1)
day period runs
from
date that
until January
(Clerk’s
not made
26
Record
certifies,
exer-
Attorney General
or in the
The
43).
commenced on
diligence,
of reasonable
cer-
cise
could have
between these two
is
dates
tified,
to the conditions stated in Section
the thirty day period
well
set forth
5032,
(2)
upon
or
date
which the
in section
But certification could con-
formally
jurisdiction
assumes
Government
have been
ceivably
days
made ten
or
earlier
juvenile,
whichever event earlier
over
later,
days
ten
and had it been made 10
occurs.
earlier,
days
Washington might
State of
to
have refused
surrender its prisoner
to an
was in constant pretrial
request by
prosecutor
informal
state,
custody,
January 2,
federal or
to a writ
or even
corpus
prose-
habeas
ad
to trial
See
quendum.
States,
Carbo v. United
364
court
federal
81 S.Ct.
(1961).
not be tacked Plaintiff-Appellant, of section and that purpose Congress not intend such a result. did WARDEN, PRISON, NEVADA STATE majority permit would remand to Defendant-Appellee. determine district court to whether more 76-1403. elapsed the date than 30 officer for the federal prosecuting United States Court of ment “could have certified to the conditions Circuit. Ninth 5032, acting with reasonable dili- gence,” and the date of trial. *4 again out that the date of certifi- cation has no relevance to the Further,
time of detention. the certifica- procedure of section 5032 appears to
express concern
ment shall intrude into matters programs
unless the state meeting
and services for the needs of its juveniles.
own Section 5032 does not ad-
dress itself to or to the detention set forth
Finally, I note that it appears entirely
unclear from the record that more than 30
days of detention elapsed after the federal
government obtained custody and day
of trial. While in his brief directs argument principally to the combined detention, he does observe that was eventually decided that the Fed-
“[i]t government
eral must assume
and, on the Federal
government officially jurisdic- through a brief pre-arraignment
hearing Magistrate Lonny before R. Suko
(C. 41).” Tr. government brief for the likewise custody
states that it assumed
21. If this be true then I would hold that began
the trial the allowable time, irrespective of the tacking problem. affirm.