United States of America v. Moreno-Vazquez

Filing 56

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that the 52 Motion to release is denied. Signed by Honorable Charles S. Coody on 11/17/08. (sl, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT M ID D L E DISTRICT OF ALABAMA E A S T E R N DIVISION In the Matter of the Extradition of ) ) ) ) ) M A R IA del ROSARIO MORENO-VAZQUEZ a/k/a MARIA COONLEY C I V . NO. 3:06cv761-CSC (W O ) M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER On August 22, 2008, upon completion of an evidentiary hearing and all other proceedings required by 18 U.S.C. 3184, the undersigned Magistrate Judge certified to th e Secretary of State for the United States of America that the evidence of criminality is s u f f ic ie n t, under the provisions of the Extradition Treaty between the United States and M e x ic o , May 4, 1978, T.I.A.S. No. 9656, 31 U.S.T. 5059, to sustain the charge of tra f f ick in g in minors brought by the United Mexican States against Maria del Rosario M o ren o -V az q u ez a/k/a Maria Coonley. (Docs. # 48-49). N o w pending before the court is Respondent Maria del Rosario MorenoV a z q u ez 's ("Moreno-Vazquez") motion for release from custody (doc. # 52) filed on O c to b e r 22, 2008. Moreno-Vazquez argues that she should be released from custody b e c au s e she has not been released to the Mexican authorities within two months of the C o u rt's Certificate of Extraditability and Order for Commitment (doc. # 49) entered on A u g u s t 22, 2008. The United States opposes her release. (Doc. # 54). T h is matter is governed by 18 U.S.C. 3188.1 W h e n e v er any person who is committed for rendition to a foreign g o v e rn m e n t to remain until delivered up in pursuance of a requisition, is not s o delivered and conveyed out of the United States within two calendar m o n th s after such commitment, over and above the time actually required to c o n v e y the prisoner from the jail to which he was committed, by the re a d ie st way, out of the United States, any judge of the United States, or of a n y State, upon application made to him by or on behalf of the person so c o m m itte d , and upon proof made to him that reasonable notice of the in te n tio n to make such application has been given to the Secretary of State, m a y order the person so committed to be discharged out of custody, unless s u f f ic ie n t cause is shown to such judge why such discharge ought not be o rd e re d . The purpose of 3188 "was to ensure prompt action by the extraditing government a s well as by this government so that the accused would not suffer incarceration in this co u n try or uncertainty as to [her] status for long periods of time through no fault of [her] o w n ." Jimenez v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Southern Dist. of Fla., Miami Div., 84 S.Ct. 14, 1 8 (1963) (Goldberg, J., in chambers). O n August 29, 2008, Moreno-Vazquez filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, M o r e n o -V a z q u e z v. Hardy, Civ. Act. No. 2:08cv716-MEF (M.D. Ala.), challenging the c e rtif ic a te of extraditability and the order for commitment. Her habeas petition remains p e n d in g . Consequently, the two month period contemplated by 3188 does not c o m m e n c e until Moreno-Vazquez's habeas petition is finally adjudicated. The common-sense reading of 3188 is that where as here, the accused has Moreno-Vazquez initially asserted that she was entitled to release pursuant to Article 11 of the treaty between the United States and Mexico. See Doc. # 52. In her reply to the United States' response, she concedes that 18 U.S.C. 3188 is the applicable statute. See Doc. # 55. 1 2 in stitu ted and pursued review of [her] extradition order, the two-month p e rio d runs from the time [her] claims are finally adjudicated, not from the tim e of the original commitment order [s]he has been challenging. In any e v e n t, since the delays were attributable to the proceedings prosecuted by p e titio n e r, there certainly was `sufficient cause' for the delay, within the in te n d e d meaning of 3188. J im e n e z, 84 S.Ct. at 18. See also Liberto v. Emery, 724 F.2d 23, 25 n.2 (2 n d Cir. 1983) (" th e two-month period does not begin to run until there has been a final adjudication of th e extradition request; [petitioner's] own habeas corpus petitions have delayed such a f in a l adjudication.") Accordingly, for the reasons as stated, it is O R D E R E D that the motion to release Respondent (doc. # 52) be and is hereby D E N IE D . D o n e this 17 th day of November, 2008. /s/Charles S. Coody CHARLES S. COODY U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?