Cucuzzella v. Keliikoa
| Decision Date | 30 January 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-4149,80-4149 |
| Citation | 638 F.2d 105 |
| Parties | Giuseppe (Joseph) CUCUZZELLA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edward N. KELIIKOA, United States Marshall, and Edmund S. Muskie, * Secretary of State, Respondents-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
T. David Woo, Jr., Honolulu, Hawaii, for petitioner-appellant.
Stephen D. Tom, Honolulu, Hawaii, for respondents-appellees.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.
Before SKOPIL, FLETCHER and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges.
INTRODUCTION
Cucuzzella appeals the denial of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Jurisdiction for this appeal is based on 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We affirm.
In March 1976, in Vancouver, B.C., Cucuzzella allegedly agreed to procure a mortgage for S. L. Scheves in return for an $11,000 commission. He allegedly failed to procure the mortgage or to refund Mr. Scheves' deposits.
In July 1976, in Vancouver, Cucuzzella allegedly entered into a similar agreement with A. W. Deitcher. He represented that he had obtained the mortgage, though he had not.
The Canadian government charged Cucuzzella with one count of theft and one In July 1979 the U.S. Attorney in Hawaii, on behalf of Canada, filed a complaint seeking Cucuzzella's arrest and extradition. In September 1979 the U.S. Attorney filed formal extradition documents.
count of criminal breach of trust for each transaction. Cucuzzella failed to appear for trial in Vancouver in March 1979.
The district court found the formal documents properly authenticated, found Cucuzzella a proper subject for extradition on all four counts, and certified his extradition to the Secretary of State.
Cucuzzella's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus was denied in March 1980. This appeal followed.
On appeal Cucuzzella argues that Canada's documents were not properly authenticated pursuant to Article 10 of the 1971 Treaty of Extradition Between the United States and Canada and 18 U.S.C. § 3190, and that the criminal counts of breach of trust were not extraditable offenses under the treaty.
I. Authentication
Cucuzzella asserts that Canada's documents were improperly authenticated and therefore inadmissible. We disagree. Article 10 of the treaty provides in pertinent part:
18 U.S.C. § 3190 provides:
"Depositions, warrants, or other papers or copies thereof offered in evidence upon the hearing of any extradition case shall be received and admitted as evidence on such hearing for all the purposes of such hearing if they shall be properly and legally authenticated so as to entitle them to be received for similar purposes by the tribunals of the foreign country from which the accused party shall have escaped, and the certificate of the principal diplomatic or consular officer of the United States resident in such foreign country shall be proof that the same, so offered, are authenticated in the manner required."
The facts as to authentication are undisputed. Our review is de novo. 1
The documents, signed and sealed by Donald H. Christie, Associate Deputy Minister of Justice for Canada, were attested to be proper and authorized indictment, information, arrest warrants, and affidavits "admissible in evidence in Canadian Courts." The U.S. Ambassador certified the papers as "legally authenticated so as to entitle them to be received in evidence for similar purposes by the tribunals of Canada."
The Canadian Certificate of Authenticity does not track the language of section 3190 mandating admission of documents that are "properly and legally authenticated" and admissible "for similar purposes" under the law of the requesting state. It does say that they would be "admissible in evidence in Canadian Courts." The omissions are trivial, and there has been no showing of a lack of authenticity. The documents provided a sufficient basis for the U.S. Ambassador to certify their authenticity. Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894, 904 (2d Cir.), cert. dismissed, 414 U.S. 884, 94 S.Ct. 204, 38 L.Ed.2d 133 (1973). See United States ex rel. Sakaguchi v. Kaulukukui, 520 F.2d 726, 728 (9th Cir. 1975); United States v. Galanis, 429 F.Supp. 1215, 1227-1229 (D.Conn.1977).
We must next determine whether the offenses for which extradition is sought are extraditable under Article 2 of the treaty. Article 2 provides in pertinent part:
"(1) Persons shall be delivered up according to the provisions of this Treaty for any of the offenses listed in the Schedule annexed to this Treaty ... provided these offenses are punishable by the laws of both Contracting Parties by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year."
Our inquiry is mandated by the "principle of specialty", recognized in international law, see Shapiro, 478 F.2d at 905-06, and incorporated into the instant treaty in Article 12. Article 12 provides in pertinent part:
"(1) A person extradited under the present Treaty shall not be detained, tried or punished in the territory of the requesting State for an offense other than that for which extradition has been granted...."
Because the treaty prohibits punishment for an "offense" other than that for which a person is extradited and because two offenses have been alleged as to each act, we must look to the extraditability of each offense and not just each act. Compare Shapiro, 478 F.2d at 907, 909, with Brauch v. Raiche, 618 F.2d 843, 851 (1st Cir. 1980). Our review is de novo. 2
To be extraditable Article 2 requires that each offense be "punishable by the laws of both Contracting Parties by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year." Cucuzzella contends that the "laws" refer to state law, in this case the law of Hawaii. We disagree.
Article 2 refers to "the laws of both Contracting Parties". The "Contracting Parties" are the United States and Canada. We therefore look to proscription by similar criminal provisions of federal law or, if none, the law of the place where the fugitive is found or, if none, the law of the preponderance of the states. 3
There is no dispute as to the extraditability of the theft counts. We therefore review only the breach of trust counts. The relevant statute is Can.Rev.Stat. § 296, which provides:
"Every one who, being a trustee of anything for the use or benefit, whether in whole or in part, of another person, or for a public or charitable purpose, converts, with intent to defraud and in violation of his trust, that thing or any part of it to a use that is not authorized by the trust is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years."
Cucuzzella argues that there is no comparable federal offense. The crimes need not be identical. 4 We find the breach of trust statute analogous to federal embezzlement statutes. See Jhirad v. Ferrandina, 355 F.Supp. 1155, 1160 (S.D.N.Y.), rev'd on other grounds, 486 F.2d 442 (2d Cir. 1973). Also compare Can.Rev.Stat. § 296 with 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries, * 230, 231, and 18 U.S.C. §§ 671-665. 18 U.S.C. § 660 proscribes embezzlement from a common carrier moving in interstate commerce. Other statutes prohibit embezzlement of, or failure to account for, public funds. 18 U.S.C. §§ 641, 643. All such statutes provide prison terms of up to ten years for thefts of the amount at issue here. If Hawaii law were determined to govern, the comparable statute would be Hawaii Rev.Stat. § 708-830(6)(a) (Supp.1979). That offense constitutes first degree theft. Hawaii Rev.Stat. § 708-831(2) (Supp.1979) and carries a maximum five-year prison term. See Hawaii Rev.Stat. Commentary on §§ 708-830, 708-874 (1976). This too would satisfy Article 2 of the treaty. We conclude that the breach of trust counts constitute extraditable offenses.
The documents have been properly authenticated under both the treaty and section 3190. There are crimes in this country comparable to those charged in Canada against Cucuzzella. Those crimes are punishable by prison terms in excess of one year. The denial of the writ of habeas corpus is AFFIRMED.
* The substitution of Secretary of State Edmund S. Muskie for former Secretary of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Robertson
...charge forms the basis for extradition, as the defendant may be prosecuted only on extraditable charges."); Cucuzzella v. Keliikoa, 638 F.2d 105, 107 (9th Cir. 1981) ("Because the treaty [between the United States and Canada] prohibits punishment for an 'offense' other than that for which a......
-
Quinn v. Robinson
...legal questions that the habeas court may review de novo. Kamrin v. United States, 725 F.2d 1225 (9th Cir.1984); Cucuzzella v. Keliikoa, 638 F.2d 105 (9th Cir.1981). Purely factual questions in extradition cases are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. See, e.g., Caplan v. Vokes, ......
-
In re Extradition of Chan Seong-I, 02-25 WJ.
...none, to the law of the place where the relator was found, or, if none, to the law of the preponderance of the states. Cucuzzella v. Keliikoa, 638 F.2d 105 (9th Cir.1981); Heilbronn, 775 F.Supp. 1020. In accordance with the treaty and case law, in determining whether the charged offense is ......
-
In re Jarosz, 11 M 079.
...Factor, 290 U.S. at 294, 54 S.Ct. 191; Ramanauskas v. United States, 526 F.3d 1111, 1114 (8th Cir.2008); Cucuzzella v. Keliikoa, 638 F.2d 105, 108 (9th Cir.1981). Still, the terms of a treaty govern its enforcement. Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491, 519, 128 S.Ct. 1346, 170 L.Ed.2d 190 (2008......