Opinion
No. CR-05-162-FVS-5.
October 16, 2007
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before the Court based upon the defendant's motion to vacate the judgment. He is representing himself.
BACKGROUND
On August 31, 2006, judgment was entered based upon the defendant's plea of guilty to the crime of conspiring to manufacture marijuana. 21 U.S.C. § 846. The defendant moves to vacate the judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In essence, he alleges that the government violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR") by prosecuting him and that the Court did not have jurisdiction.
RULING
The defendant's allegations lack merit. To begin with, "the ICCPR does not create judicially-enforceable individual rights." United States v. Duarte-Acero, 296 F.3d 1277, 1283 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1038, 123 S.Ct. 573, 154 L.Ed.2d 459 (2002). Furthermore, jurisdiction and venue are well established. A district court has subject matter jurisdiction over federal crimes. 18 U.S.C. § 3231. Cf. United States v. Lee, 472 U.S. 638, 641-42 (9th Cir. 2006) ("Congress vested district courts of the United States with jurisdiction to prosecute federal crimes"). The Eastern District of Washington is a "district court of the United States." 28 U.S.C. §§ 128(a), 132, 451. The defendant was charged with a federal crime. Therefore, subject matter jurisdiction existed. "[A] court has exclusive personal jurisdiction over any party who appears before it, regardless of how that appearance was effected." United States v. Warren, 610 F.2d 680, 684 n. 8 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing United States v. Zammiello, 432 F.2d 72, 73 (9th Cir. 1970)). The defendant appeared in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Therefore, personal jurisdiction existed. Finally, "[v]enue for a conspiracy charge `is appropriate in any district where an overt act committed in the course of the conspiracy occurred.'" United States v. Corona, 34 F.3d 876, 878-91 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Meyers, 847 F.2d 1408, 1411 (9th Cir. 1988)). In pleading guilty, the defendant admitted facts sufficient to establish venue.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The defendant's motion to show cause ( Ct. Rec. 421) is denied.
2. The defendant's motion to vacate ( Ct. Rec. 419) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby directed to enter this order and furnish copies to the defendant and to counsel for the government.