In re Yordanov

• Decision Date: 18 January 2017
• Docket Number: NO. CV 16-170-CAS(E),CV 16-170-CAS(E)
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California
• Parties: IN THE MATTER OF THE EXTRADITION OF LYUBOMIR MIHAILOV YORDANOV, aka "Lyubomire M. Iordanov," a Fugitive from the Government of Bulgaria

IN THE MATTER OF THE EXTRADITION OF LYUBOMIR MIHAILOV YORDANOV, aka "Lyubomire M. Iordanov," a Fugitive from the Government of Bulgaria

NO. CV 16-170-CAS(E)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

January 18, 2017

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER:

1. DENYING FUGITIVE'S MOTION TO DISMISS; AND

2. CERTIFYING EXTRADITABILITY

BACKGROUND

The Government of Bulgaria has requested the extradition of Lyubomir Mihailov Yordanov, also known as Lyubomire M. Iordanov ("Yordanov"). Yordanov opposes extradition.

On December 15, 2015, the Government of the United States ("Government") filed a sealed "Complaint for Arrest Warrant and Extradition" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3184 in In the Matter of the Extradition of Lyubomir Mihailov Yordanov, aka "Lyubomire M. Iordanov," 15-2388M. Yordanov was arrested in this District on December 18, 2015.

On January 8, 2016, the Government filed in the present action: (1) a Request for Extradition with exhibits ("Request for Extradition"); and (2) a "Notice to Consolidate" this action with case number 15-2388M. Also on January 8, 2016, the matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge.

On July 29, 2016, the Government filed the "United States' Extradition Memorandum" ("Government's Memorandum"). On October 19, 2016, Yordanov filed "Mr. Yordanov's Brief in Opposition to Government's Request for Extradition, etc." ("Opposition"). On October 28, 2016, the Government filed the "United States' Reply in Support of Extradition Request, etc." ("Reply"). On November 3, 2016, the Government filed the "United States' Filing of Supplement to Request for Extradition" ("Government's November 3, 2016 Supplement").

On November 7, 2016, Yordanov filed "Mr. Yordanov's Sur-Reply Brief in Opposition to Government's Request for Extradition and Motion to Dismiss Request for Extradition" ("Sur-Reply and Motion to Dismiss"). On November 9, 2016, the Government filed the "United States' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Request for Extradition."

The Magistrate Judge held an extradition hearing on November 10, 2016.

On November 16, 2016, the Government filed the "United States' Filing of Supplement to Request for Extradition, etc." (Government'sNovember 16, 2016 Supplement"). On December 13, 2016, Yordanov filed "Mr. Yordanov's Response to Government's Supplement to Request for Extradition" ("Response to Government's November 16, 2016 Supplement").

YORDANOV'S MOTION TO DISMISS

A criminal charge is pending against Yordanov in the town of Plovdiv, Bulgaria, charging deceit in violation of section 209(1) of the Bulgarian Criminal Code, as amended in 1982 and 1983.

In support of the Request for Extradition, the Government initially provided the following translation of section 209(1):

Who, with the purpose of obtaining for himself or for somebody else property benefit [sic], arises or maintains aberration [sic] in somebody, thus causing him or somebody else property damage shall be punished by imprisonment from one to six years.

Request for Extradition, Government's Exhibit B, ECF Dkt. No. 10-1, p. 46. In Yordanov's Opposition, Yordanov's argued that this translation was unintelligible. See Opposition, pp. 5-7. The Government then attached to its Reply a different, unauthenticated translation of the statute. Yordanov thereafter sought to dismiss the proceeding on the grounds that the new translation was untimely and not properly authenticated. See Sur-Reply and Motion to Dismiss, pp. 2-6.

/// Following the hearing on November 10, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Minute Order permitting the Government to file a properly authenticated, accurate translation of the statute and authorizing Yordanov to file a response. The Government thereafter filed its November 16, 2016 Supplement to which was attached a copy of a new translation of the statute, a sworn certificate of translation and a cover letter from the director of "International Legal Cooperation and European Affairs" of the Bulgarian Ministry of Justice bearing the seal of the Ministry of Justice. See Government's November 16, 2016 Supplement, ECF Dkt. No. 50, Exs. A, B. This translation of section 209(1) reads:

A person who for the purpose of acquiring material benefit for himself or for another evokes or maintains in somebody a misleading idea, and thereby causes material damage to that person or to another, shall be punished for deceit by imprisonment from one to six years.

Government's November 16, 2016 Supplement, ECF Dkt. No. 50, Ex. A. Yordanov continues to object to the Government's submission of the new translation on procedural grounds. See Response to Government's November 16, 2016 Supplement, ECF Dkt. No. 52, p. 2.

The Court finds that the new translation has been sufficiently authenticated. See 18 U.S.C. § 3190; Extradition Treaty Between the Government of the United States and the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria, signed at Sofia on September 19, 2007, S. Treaty Doc. No. 110-12 (2008) ("Treaty"), Art. 9, Request for Extradition,Government's Ex. A,, ECF Dkt. No. 10, p. 37 ("Documents that bear the certificate of seal of the Ministry of Justice, or Ministry of Department responsible for foreign affairs, of the Requesting State shall be admissible in extradition proceedings in the Requested State without further certification, authentication, or other legalization."). The Court also finds that the timing of the presentation and authentication of the new translation is not fatal to the merits of the Request for Extradition. The Treaty does not necessarily require that all documents submitted in support of a request for extradition be submitted at the same time as the request itself. See Treaty, Art. 8, 9, 10, Request for Extradition, Ex. A; 18 U.S.C. §§ 3184, 3190. The Motion to Dismiss is denied.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS RE EXTRADITION

I. Jurisdiction

This Court has jurisdiction to conduct extradition proceedings pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3184, Local Rule 72-1, and General Order No. 05-07 of the United States Court for the Central District of California. The Court has jurisdiction over Yordanov pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 3184.

II. Treaty

The Treaty is in full force and effect. See Request for Extradition, Government's Ex. A, ECF Dkt. No. 10, pp. 5-48; Declaration of Julie B. Martin, ¶ 3, Government's Exhibit A, ECF Dkt.No. 10, p. 5.

III. Identity

The Lyubomir Mihailov Yordanov appearing before this Court is the same Lyubomir Mihailov Yordanov sought by the Government of Bulgaria.

IV. Request for Extradition; Procedural Requirements

The Request for Extradition filed with this Court by the Government of Bulgaria, as augmented by subsequent filings, complies with the procedural requirements of the Treaty.

V. Charge

The charge of deceit is based on allegations that, from May 2008 until August 28, 2008, in the towns of Plovdiv and Krichim, for the purpose of obtaining for himself or another a property benefit, Yordanov allegedly "aroused and sustained deception" in the victim, Yordan Vasilev Angelov, causing property damage "on a large scale" in a sum equivalent to $640,000. Request for Extradition, Government's

///

///

///

///

///

///

///Ex. B, ECF Dkt. No. 10-1, pp. 24, 33, 42.¹ Yordanov allegedly violated Bulgarian Criminal Code section 209(1), which (as previously indicated) provides:

A person who for the purpose of acquiring material benefit for himself or for another evokes or maintains in somebody a misleading idea, and thereby causes material damage to that person or to another, shall be punished for deceit by imprisonment from one to six years.

Government's November 16, 2016 Supplement, ECF Dkt. No. 50, Ex. A. Pursuant to Bulgarian Criminal Code section 210(5), the punishment for "deceit" in Bulgaria is increased to one to eight years if the "caused damage is large in size." Government's Ex. B, ECF Dkt. No. 10-1, p. 46.

VI. Limited Nature of Present Proceedings

In Vo v. Benov, 447 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 935 (2006), the Ninth Circuit emphasized the very limited role of the court in extradition proceedings.

///

An extradition court - in this case the magistrate judge-exercises very limited authority in the overall process of extradition. As we have explained, "[e]xtradition is a matter of foreign policy entirely within the discretion of the executive branch, except to the extent that the statute interposes a judicial function." [citations]. Extradition from the United States is initiated when the nation seeking extradition makes a request directly to the State Department. [citation]. "After the request has been evaluated by the State Department to determine whether it is within the scope of the relevant extradition treaty, a United States Attorney . . . files a complaint in federal district court seeking an arrest warrant for the person sought to be extradited." [citation]. Upon the filing of a complaint, a judicial officer (typically a magistrate judge) issues a warrant for an individual sought for extradition, provided that an extradition treaty exists between the United States and the country seeking extradition and the crime charged is covered by the treaty. 18 U.S.C. § 3184. After the warrant issues, the judicial officer conducts a hearing to determine whether there is "evidence sufficient to sustain the charge under the provisions of the proper treaty or convention," id., or, in other words, whether there is probable cause.

Id. at 1237.

///

/// Thus, in determining whether the crime is extraditable and whether probable cause exists, the Magistrate Judge "has no discretionary decision to make." Prasoprat v. Benov, 421 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1171 (2006) (citation and internal quotations omitted). "If the judge or magistrate judge concludes that 'the crime is extraditable,' and that 'there is probable cause to sustain the charge,' the judge or magistrate judge must certify the extradition." Manta v. Chertoff, 518 F.3d 1134, 1140 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). "Once a magistrate...