In the Matter of Extradition

Filing 27

CERTIFICATION AND COMMITTAL FOR EXTRADITION: I find that Fugitive is not a flight risk and that special circumstances exist that support Fugitive's continued release and that the "special circumstances" test applies in this p ost-certification context. Fugitive's Motion to Continue Release 19 is Granted and the Government's Motion for Detention 20 is Denied. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3184, and the findings of facts and conclusions of law, I certify th e extradition of the Fugitive, Timothy Scott Cedarbloom, to Canada, on all offenses for which extradition was requested, and I continue the previous order of release on the same conditions as previously entered, pending further decision on extradi tion and surrender by the Secretary of State pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3186. I further order that the Department of Justice forward a certified copy of this Certification and Committal for Extradition, together with a copy of the evidence presented in this case, including the formal extradition documents received in evidence and any testimony received in this case, to the Secretary of State. Signed on 8/7/17 by Magistrate Judge Paul Papak. (gm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON

IN THE MATTER OF
THE EXTRADITION OF
TIMOTHY SCOTT CEDARBLOOM

3:17-MC-00094-PK
CERTIFICATION AND
COMMITTAL FOR EXTRADITION

Having held an extradition hearing on July 12, 2017, and after considering the evidence,
in particular, the certified and authenticated documents submitted by the Government of Canada,
and the pleadings and the arguments of both counsel, the Comt finds and ce1tifies to the
Secretaiy of State as follows:
(1) This Comt has jurisdiction over, and the undersigned is authorized to conduct,

extradition proceedings pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 3184;
(2) This Court has personal jurisdiction over Timothy Scott Cedarbloom ("Fugitive")
found and arrested on March 2, 2017, in this District pursuant to a complaint filed by the United
States in response to the request of Government of Canada for the all'est and extradition of the
Fugitive;
(3) The extradition treaty between the United States and the Government of Canada,
known as the Treaty on Extradition Between the United States of America and Canada, U.S.Can., Dec. 3, 1971, 27 U.S.T. 983, as amended by Protocol Amending the Extradition Treaty
with Canada, U.S.-Can., Jan. 11, 1988, S. Treaty Doc. No. 101-17 (1990), and Second Protocol
Amending the Extradition Treaty with Canada, U.S.-Can., Jan. 12, 2001, S. Treaty Doc. No.
107-11 (2002) (collectively the "Treaty"), entered into force on December 3, 1971, and was in
full force and effect at all times relevant to this action;

(4) The Timothy Scott Cedarbloom sought by the Canadian authorities and the Timothy
Scott Cedarbloom arrested in this District for extradition and brought before this Court are one
and the same person;
(5) The Fugitive has been convicted and sentenced in Canada to three-and-one-half years
of imprisonment for robbe1y, in violation of section 344 of the Criminal Code of Canada,
including a remaining term of imprisonment of 636 days. The Government of Canada has
jurisdiction over this criminal conduct;
(6) The above-referenced Treaty between the United States and Canada, pursuant to
Article 2, encompasses the offense for which the Fugitive has been convicted and sentenced and
for which extradition is sought for service of sentence;
(7) The Government of Canada submitted documents that were properly authenticated
and certified in accordance with the terms of the Treaty. Those documents include the pertinent
text for the crime for which the Fugitive has been convicted and sentenced;
(8) There is probable cause to believe that the Fugitive before this Court, the same
person identified in the extradition request from the Government of Canada, committed the
offense for which extradition is sought;
(9) The evidence before this Coutt is sufficient to justify the Fugitive's committal for
trial, on felony charges, had the offense for which he is convicted of having committed occutTed
in the United States. This finding rests upon the documents submitted by the Government of
Canada in this matter, including: (a) Diplomatic Note No. 2708 from the Canadian Embassy to
the U.S. Depaitment of State dated October 26, 2015, seeking the extradition of the Fugitive and
enclosing records supporting the request; (b) Diplomatic Note No. 3560 from the Canadian
Embassy to the U.S. Depaitment of State dated August 26, 2016, enclosing additional records

Certification and Committal for Extradition

Page2

supp01ting the extradition request; (c) Diplomatic Note No. 3412 from the Canadian Embassy to
the U.S. Department of State dated June 28, 2016 enclosing additional records supporting the
extradition request; (d) the first affidavit of Lisa Manson-Shillington, dated October 15, 2015;
(e) the first affidavit of Vanessa Wynn-Williams, dated October 20, 2015; (f) the affidavit of
Michelle Cloutier-Hunt, dated June 27, 2016; (g) the second affidavit of Vanessa WynnWilliams, dated August 24, 2016; (h) the second affidavit of Lisa Manson-Shillington, dated
June 14, 2017; and (i) all the exhibits attached to those Diplomatic Notes and affidavits,
including: (1) the transcript from the November 27, 1998 hearing in Halifax, Nova Scotia,
Canada, in which the Fugitive pied guilty and was sentenced for robbery in violation of
Canadian law, (2) photographs of the Fugitive.
(10) Fugitive argues that while the Extradition Treaty was ratified by the United States,
it was never ratified by the Parliament of Canada, or by any parliamentary committee, or even
Privy Council. On that basis, Fugitive argues that Canada's request to extradite Fugitive should
be denied. I find that whether the Government of Canada properly ratified the Treaty is a
nonjusticiable political question solely within the purview of the U.S. Executive Branch.
Furthermore, I defer to the view of the U. S. Depaitment of State that the Treaty is "in full force
and effect."
(11) Fugitive further argues that dual criminality is lacking because the most analogous
offense under United States law is bank robbety which requires the Government to prove that
the victim bank was insured by the FDDIC. The Treaty, however, expressly provides that any
interstate element of a United States statute cannot defeat extradition. Fugitive's argument is
without merit.

Certification and Committal for Extradition

Page3

(12) Fugitive next argues that since conviction here was not obtained following trial, but
by a guilty plea, that the conviction does not support probable cause. I can find no authority for
the proposition that a conviction arising from a guilty plea is not entitled to the same weight in
an extradition case as a conviction following trial. Even without reliance on the conviction, I find
ample evidence supporting probable cause in the facts set forth in the extradition request
submitted by Canada including the transcript of the hearing held on November 21, 1998, wherein
fugitive admitted robbing the bank.
(13) Finally, Fugitive argues that certain of the Treaty provisions bar extradition in this
case. Based on undue delay, Fugitive argues that extradition violates Article 8 of the Treaty and
the

5th

Amendment to the U. S. constitution. I find that Fugitive has no right to speedy

extradition either under the Treaty or the U. S. Constitution. I defer consideration of Fugitive's
argument regarding due diligence for consideration by the Secretaty of State. Additionally,
Fugitive argues that extradition is barred by A1ticle 4 of the Treaty based on his five days of
detention. I find that the United States has never proceeded against Fugitive for the 1998 robbe1y
and that his brief detention was based solely on Canada's request for extradition. Extradition is,
thus, not barred by the provisions of A1ticle 4 of the Treaty.

THEREFORE, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3184, and the above findings of facts and
conclusions oflaw, I certify the extradition of the Fugitive, Timothy Scott Cedarbloom, to
Canada, on all offenses for which extradition was requested, and I continue the previous order of
release on the same conditions 1 as previously entered, pending fmther decision on extradition
and surrender by the Secretary of State pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3186.

Certification and Committal for Extradition

Page 4

I futiher order that the Department of Justice forward a certified copy of this Certification
and Committal for Extradition, together with a copy of the evidence presented in this case,
including the formal extradition documents received in evidence and any testimony received in
this case, to the Secretaiy of State.
Dated this 7th day of August, 2017.

1

I find that Fugitive is not a flight risk and that special circumstances exist that support Fugitive's continued
release and that the" special circumstances" test applies in this post-certification context. Fugitive's Motion to
Continue Release (#19) is granted and the Government's Motion for Detention (#20) is denied.

Certification and Committal for Extradition

Pages