Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lucero v. United States

United States District Court, D. Maryland

October 6, 2014

LEONARDO RAMOS LUCERO, Petitioner
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

MEMORANDUM

JAMES K. BREDAR, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is Leonardo Ramos Lucero's petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1), seeking review of the order entered on June 2, 2014, which certified Lucero's extradition to the United Mexican States ("Mexico") (14-mj-01009-BPG, ECF No. 7). The United States has filed its response in this case (Civ. No. JKB-14-1919, ECF No. 3), to which Petitioner filed no reply. No hearing is necessary. Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2014). The petition will be denied.

Preliminarily, the Court notes Respondent has rightly pointed out that naming the United States as Respondent is incorrect under the federal habeas statute, which indicates that a writ or order to show cause is properly directed to "the person having custody of the person detained." 28 U.S.C. ยง 2243. The United States is not Petitioner's custodian. From the record, it appears that Lucero is presently detained in the Chesapeake Detention Facility, which is part of the Maryland state correction system. His present custodian, then, is Robert Koppel, who is warden of that facility. Because Respondent, in the interest of efficiency and economy, does not object to amendment of the petition to name the correct custodian (Mem. 3, ECF No. 3), the Court will order the docket to be amended to reflect Koppel as Respondent.

I. Standard for Habeas Corpus Review of Extradition Certification Order

It is well established that a fugitive has no direct appeal from an extradition judge's certification. Collins v. Miller, 252 U.S. 364, 369 (1920). The only means to obtain review of an extradition certification is to seek federal habeas relief. Haxhiaj v. Hackman, 528 F.3d 282, 285-86 (4th Cir. 2008). A habeas petitioner has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he is being held contrary to federal law. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 468-69 (1938); Skaftouros v. United States, 667 F.3d 144, 158 (2d Cir. 2011). The standard to be employed in this particular kind of habeas review was articulated by the Supreme Court in Fernandez v. Phillips, 268 U.S. 311 (1925):

[The writ of habeas corpus] is not a means for rehearing what the magistrate already has decided. The alleged fugitive from justice has had his hearing and habeas corpus is available only to inquire whether the magistrate had jurisdiction, whether the offense charged is within the treaty and, by a somewhat liberal extension, whether there was any evidence warranting the finding that there was reasonable ground to believe the accused guilty.

Id. at 312; Mironescu v. Costner, 480 F.3d 664, 665-66 (4th Cir. 2007).

During an extradition hearing, the magistrate judge applies the same standard for probable cause employed in federal preliminary hearings, i.e., "whether there is competent evidence to justify holding the accused to await trial.'" Haxhiaj, 528 F.3d at 287 (citation omitted). But as the Supreme Court noted in Fernandez, "[c]ompetent evidence to establish reasonable grounds [to extradite] is not necessarily evidence competent to convict." 268 U.S. at 312. And a federal habeas court's review of the magistrate judge's probable cause determination "is at least as deferential, if not more so, than that applied to a magistrate judge's decision to issue a search warrant." Ordinola v. Hackman, 478 F.3d 588, 609-10 (4th Cir. 2007) (Traxler, J., concurring), quoted in Haxhiaj, 528 F.3d at 287.

II. Evidence Supporting the Extradition Request

A brief summary of the crime underlying the extradition request, and the supporting evidence, will be helpful here. The summary is derived from the documents submitted by the Mexican government in furtherance of its extradition request; documents were submitted in Spanish and in an English translation. (14-mj-01009-BPG, ECF No. 10.)

According to the statement of Roxana Adelina Hinojosa Ramos ("Hinojosa Ramos"), in the evening hours of January 2, 2006, in Ensenada, Baja California, she went to a public park to meet her former boyfriend, Klaus Michael Aldama Perez ("Aldama Perez"), who was the father of her son. ( Id. Ex. 7.) She had broken up with him after he cheated on her. Hinojosa Ramos and Aldama Perez walked to a playground in the park and talked, but he started yelling at her, accusing her of having a new companion. Hinojosa Ramos then left and, when she was about twenty meters from the playground, heard Aldama Perez shouting, "Help me, Roxana." She then saw someone wearing dark blue pants and a dark-colored jacket and running out of the playground. At the same time she saw her half-brother, Leonardo Ramos Lucero, coming toward her. He grabbed her arm and pulled her away from the playground, saying, "Let's go, let's go." Hinojosa Ramos then asked him what he did to Aldama Perez, and Lucero said, "Nothing, nothing happened, I just hit him." When she asked him why, Lucero said, "Because he deserved it, because he abused, do not go back, fuck him, let's go, and you know nothing, you have not seen me, and I am dead." Hinojosa Ramos described what her half-brother was wearing: black trousers, white sneakers, a dark-colored hat reading "LA, " and off-white "sweating jacket with brown sleeves and brown cap, and some letters in the chest." Hinojosa Ramos said Lucero was wearing the "cap" over the hat; the Court infers the "cap" of the "sweating jacket" was a hood. Shortly after the incident in the park, Hinojosa Ramos was shown an article of clothing by law enforcement personnel, and she identified it as "the same sweating jacket" worn by Lucero when she saw him in the park.

Hinojosa Ramos stated her family did not like Aldama Perez. Once, she was talking on the telephone with Aldama Perez and started arguing. Lucero was present, grabbed the telephone, and began arguing with Aldama Perez, telling him, "Be cool, man, stop fucking around, if the girl does not want to be with you any more, leave her, the hell, otherwise I shall fuck you." Hinojosa Ramos also stated that Lucero had been imprisoned for about eight months for the crime of car theft. She described him as "a very violent man and... a drug consumer for a long time." She stated that her father's name is Rafael Mendoza Orozco and her mother is Guadalupe Ramos Lucero.

Also in the park at the time of the killing were three juvenile males who provided witness statements to the police within a few hours after Aldama Perez was killed. The first, Francisco Geovany Arellano Almazan, stated that he saw a young man and young woman talking in the park. (Ex. 4.) The Court notes that the young man was later identified as Aldama Perez and the young woman as Hinojosa Ramos. The couple walked by Almazan to go to another part of the playground. He also saw "the two boys" arrive at the park. He could not see the younger male's face "because he was wearing a sweat shirt with a hood, and this sweat shirt has beige color in the chest and with brown sleeves, and with a sign in the chest." He saw the two males approach Aldama Perez and Hinojosa Ramos and kick and hit Aldama Perez, who apparently tried to defend himself by kicking and hitting the two assailants. Hinojosa Ramos told the two males to leave Aldama Perez alone. Almazan saw both males keep hitting Aldama Perez; Almazan heard Aldama Perez scream, then saw him stumble and fall on his back. Hinojosa Ramos, according to Almazan, then left the playground, but Almazan saw the male "with the sweat shirt with a hood" catch up to Hinojosa Ramos. Almazan and his two friends then went to where Aldama Perez was lying on the ground and found he had blood on his chest. They called for help. After the police arrived, officers showed a detained individual to Almazan and his friends. Almazan identified him as the older of the two males who had attacked Aldama Perez. (This person is named in the Mexican charging documents as Erik Francisco Torres Moreno.)

The second juvenile was Jose Margarito Veliz Dominguez, and he gave a similar statement to police with a similar description of the two assailants. (Ex. 5.) He recalled that one of the two had a knife in his hand, but could not say which one. The third juvenile was Gabriel Lozano Rodriguez ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.