Roman Wroclawski v. Hillary Clinton

Good Law
486 F. App'x 684
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 1, 201212-15113California373 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner-Appellant Roman Wroclawski (“Wroclawski”) appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Wroclawski’s habeas petition challenges his certification of extradit-ability to Poland issued by a magistrate judge acting as an extradition court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a), and we affirm.

Wroclawski’s extradition is consistent with the applicable treaty. Wroclawski has not demonstrated that the magistrate judge committed clear error in the factual findings related to whether Poland charged Wroclawski with a continual offense or whether Poland commenced proceedings against Wroclawski. See Sainez v. Venables, 588 F.3d 713, 715 (9th Cir.2009). Given the findings of fact by the magistrate judge, and upon consideration of the related issues of law, we conclude that the Polish statute of limitation has not run for the crimes charged. See Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 776, 791-92 (9th Cir.1986).

Furthermore, Wroclawski has been charged with an offense that is extraditable under the applicable treaty because the alleged crimes are punishable under the laws of both the United States and Poland by a deprivation…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.