MIGUEL SALERNO, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND UNITED STATES MARSHAL FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the appellant did not demonstrate special circumstances justifying bail pending appeal of an extradition certification denial.
The appellant was certified as extraditable to Australia and subsequently denied bail pending appeal. He moved for bail pending appeal, arguing he was…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Writ Of Habeas Corpus cases and more on FLexlaw
Miguel Salerno appeals from the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he challenges the magistrate’s order certifying him extraditable to Australia. On May 4, 1989, the district court denied Salerno’s motion for bail pending appeal. He now moves this court for bail pending appeal.
There is a presumption against bail in an extradition case and only “special circumstances” will justify bail. Wright v. Henkel, 190 U.S. 40, 63, 23 S.Ct. 781, 787, 47 L.Ed. 948 (1903); Hu Yau-Leung v. Soscia, 649 F. 2d 914, 920 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 971, 102 S.Ct. 519, 70 L.Ed.2d 389 (1981). Examples of such circumstances include the raising of substantial claims upon which the appellant has a high probability of success, a serious deterioration of health while incarcerated, and unusual delay in the appeal process. See Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct. 3, 5, 13 L.Ed.2d 6 (1964); United States v. Williams, 611 F. 2d 914, 915 (1st Cir.1979); Galante v. Warden, 573 F. 2d 707, 708 (2d Cir.1977).
Salerno has not demonstrated that he is entitled to release under this stan dard. Instead, he contends that because he is not a flight risk, he is entitled to bail pending the appeal of the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. That is not the criteria for release in an extradition case. Kamrin v. United States, 725 F. 2d 1225, 1228 (9th Cir.1984). We therefore deny his motion for bail pending appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wright v. Henkel, 190 U.S. 40 (U.S. 1903)
- Kamrin v. United States, 725 F.2d 1225 (9th Cir. 1984)
- United States v. Williams, 611 F.2d 914 (1st Cir. 1979)
- Carmine Galante v. The Warden, 573 F.2d 707 (2d Cir. 1977)
- HU Yau-Leung v. Soscia, 649 F.2d 914 (2d Cir. 1981)
- Matthew v. Louisiana, 454 U.S. 971 (U.S. 1981)
- Coades v. United States, 454 U.S. 971 (U.S. 1981)