ROMAN WROCLAWSKI V. HILLARY CLINTON, No. 12-15113 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 01 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROMAN WROCLAWSKI, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 12-15113 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00977-ROS v. MEMORANDUM * HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, United States Secretary of State; ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General; DAVID GONZALES, United States Marshall, District of Arizona, DAVID MARTIN, Chief Pretrial Services Officer, District of Arizona, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Roslyn O. Silver, Chief District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 18, 2012 San Francisco, California * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Before: WALLACE and BEA, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.** 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 extraditability to Poland issued by a magistrate judge acting as an extradition court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. ยงยง 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 of liberty for ** The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Judge for the U.S. Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. 2 a maximum period of more than one year. This determination does not depend on any potentially applicable statute of limitations for analogous crimes in the United States, the sentence Wroclawski may have received if he were prosecuted for an analogous crime in the United States, or additional provisions of Polish law. In addition, Poland supported its extradition request with the documents required by the treaty. Finally, Wroclawski has not demonstrated that the magistrate judge violated his procedural due process rights in making the factual findings related to whether Wroclawski was charged with a continual offense or whether Poland commenced proceedings. See Emami v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist., 834 F.2d 1444, 1448 49 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing In re Assarsson, 635 F.2d 1237, 1244 (7th Cir. 1980)). The magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion in denying Wroclawski s discovery request because the requested documents have not been shown to be relevant. See Prasoprat v. Benov, 421 F.3d 1009, 1014 16 (9th Cir. 2005). The district court s judgment denying appellant s petition for habeas corpus is AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
