United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 20, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-50760 c/w
No. 02-50761
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ERNESTO LUIS VALERIANO-VALLES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. P-99-CR-39-2 and USDC No. P-01-CR-362
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ernesto Luis Valeriano-Valles appeals his guilty-plea
convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
marijuana and for importation of marijuana in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846.
Valeriano asserts that the district court erred when it
denied his motion to suppress the indictment because the district
court lacked jurisdiction due to his abduction by force by
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 02-50760 c/w
No. 02-50761
-2-
Mexican authorities and delivery to the United States Government.
He asserts that his abduction violated due process and the terms
of the Extradition Treaty between the United States and Mexico,
31 U.S.T. 5059, 5065 (May 4, 1978).
This court adheres to the Ker-Frisbie doctrine, set forth in
Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 440 (1886), and Frisbie v.
Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 522 (1952), which provides that due
process is not denied by a court’s assumption of jurisdiction
over a defendant who is forcibly brought before the court. See
United States v. Wilson, 732 F.2d 404, 410-11 (5th Cir. 1984).
Valeriano relies on United States v. Toscanino, 500 F.2d 267, 275
(2d Cir. 1974), and asserts that his case warrants an exception
to the Ker-Frisbie doctrine. This court has not accepted
Toscanino as a departure from the Ker-Frisbie doctrine. See
Wilson, 732 F.2d at 411. Moreover, Valeriano has not established
that the district court erred when it concluded that the facts he
alleges are not supported by the record.
Valeriano’s argument that the district court lacked
jurisdiction because his abduction violated the extradition
treaty between the United States and Mexico is also without
merit. See United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655, 664-
70 (1992) (the United States/Mexico extradition treaty does not
prohibit international abductions), and United States v. Chapa-
Garza, 62 F.3d 118, 120 (5th Cir. 1995) (“A criminal defendant
abducted to the United States from a nation with which it has an
No. 02-50760 c/w
No. 02-50761
-3-
extradition treaty does not acquire a defense to the jurisdiction
of this country’s courts. The language of this country’s treaty
with Mexico does not support the proposition that abductions are
prohibited outside its terms.”) (citations omitted).
The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.