court properly denied Munoz’s habeas petition because the extradition court’s probable cause determination was supported by competent evidence. AFFIRMED. 1 . The extradition court did not address Hurta-do's October 12, 2005 statement, which contains a dramatically different description of the events on the day of the alleged kidnapping, but also makes no allegations of torture. Munoz does not contend that the extradition court’s silence as to this statement constitutes error. We therefore express no view on the significance, or lack thereof, of Hurtado’s October 12, 2005 statement. 2 .Barapind. 's analysis of recantation evidence is largely consistent with the approach of other circuit courts that have addressed this issue. See Hoxha v. Levi, 465 F.3d 554, 561— 62 (3d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Eain v. Wilkes, 641 F.2d 504, 511-12 (7th
holding that the extradition court did not abuse its discretion in excluding a recantation given that the original statement was independently corroborated and the recantation provided an alternative and contradictory narrative that can properly be presented at trial holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding violation was willful and substantial holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the testimony of a witness that was not highly probative holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding hearsay evidence and evidence that violated the best evidence rule in deciding a summary judgment motion holding trial court acted within its discretion in excluding expert testimony