UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALEJANDRO TOLEDO No. 22-15705 MANRIQUE, D.C. No. Petitioner-Appellant, 3:21-cv-08395-LB

v. ORDER MARK KOLC, Acting United States Marshal for the Northern District of California,

Respondent-Appellee.

Filed April 5, 2023 Before: Michelle T. Friedland and Ryan D. Nelson, Circuit Judges, and Kathleen Cardone, * District Judge.

* The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation. 2 ALEJANDRO TOLEDO MANRIQUE V. MARK KOLC

SUMMARY **

Extradition / Stay

The panel denied former Peruvian president Alejandro Toledo Manrique’s motion to stay his extradition proceeding pending resolution of his appeal from the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the extradition order. Peru seeks to extradite Toledo to face criminal charges for allegedly accepting millions of dollars in bribes during his presidency. Peruvian prosecutors accused Toledo of money laundering and collusion in two Prosecutor’s Decisions, documents that summarize the ongoing investigation, and in an Acusación Fiscal, a document produced at the end of an investigation that lays out the crimes allegedly committed and supporting evidence. The Peruvian government presented initial and supplemental extradition requests to the United States, and following the usual procedures for extradition, a federal prosecutor filed a criminal complaint against Toledo. A United States magistrate judge certified the extradition to the State Department. Toledo petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus petition, which the district court denied, and Toledo appealed. Given the possibility of extradition before resolution of his appeal, Toledo sought a stay before the district court. The district court denied the motion but entered a temporary stay pending appeal, and Toledo moved for such a stay before this court. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. ALEJANDRO TOLEDO MANRIQUE V. MARK KOLC 3

The panel weighed the four factors that guide consideration of whether to issue a stay. First, irreparable injury is obvious. Once extradited, Toledo’s appeal will be moot Additionally, given his advanced age and preexisting health conditions, Toledo— who explained that he could be detained in Peru up to three years pending formal charges and that the conditions in Peruvian prisons are dire—risks contracting a fatal illness or experiencing other serious health declines. Second, Toledo has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits on any of his three arguments. • The parties disputed whether the accusations contained in the Acusación Fiscal suffice to “charge[ ]” Toledo “with” an extraditable offense under the United States- Peru Extradition Treaty. Toledo argued that the Treaty requires an Orden de Enjuiciamiento before extradition. The panel observed that nothing in the language of the Treaty unambiguously requires an Orden de Enjuiciamiento as opposed to an Acusación Fiscal, and that the Treaty as a whole suggests an Acusación Fiscal satisfies being “charged with” a crime under the Treaty. The panel wrote that even if “charged with” is ambiguous, the drafting history suggests a broader meaning, and this court’s rules of interpretation militate against reading in a requirement of particular formal charges where the treaty makes no such specification. • Toledo argued that Peru did not submit a “copy of the charging document” because only an Orden de Enjuiciamiento