United States of America v. Roxana Carolina Duran-Reyes

Filing 49

CERTIFICATION OF EXTRADITABILITY AND ORDER RE BAIL BY U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Jean P. Rosenbluth: Granting Request for Extradition, 28 of defendant Roxana Carolina Duran-Reyes to Republic of Columbia. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk of t he Court deliver forthwith to the Assistant U.S. Attorney a certified copy of this Certification of Extraditability and Order re Bail and forwardwithout delay certified copies of the same to the Secretary ofState (to the attention of the Office of t he Legal Adviser) and the Director, Office of International Affairs, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, in Washington, D.C., for appropriate disposition. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Duran-Reyes be committed to the custody of the U.S. Marsh al for the Central District of California pending final disposition of this matter by the Secretary of State and arrival of agents of the requesting state unless within 30 days of the date of this Order she files a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging the Court's certification of extradition. (See Order for important details)MD JS-6. Case Terminated (bem)

FILED
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

3/20/2017

1
2

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

bm

BY: ___________________ DEPUTY

3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

IN THE MATTER OF THE
EXTRADITION OF
ROXANA CAROLINA DURANREYES,
aka “Roxana Carolina
Duram-Reyes,”
“Roxana Carolina Duram,”
“Roxana Carolina Reyes,”
“Roxana Carolina Duran,”
“Roxana Carolina Argueta,”
“Roxana Carolina
Carallero,”
A Fugitive from the
Government of the Republic
of Colombia.

) Case No. CV 16-4759-GW (JPR)
)
)
) CERTIFICATION OF EXTRADITABILITY
) AND ORDER RE BAIL
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

The Court has received a Complaint filed by the U.S.

19

Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, acting

20

on behalf of the Government of the Republic of Colombia,

21

requesting extradition of Roxana Carolina Duran-Reyes.

22

is also in receipt of a formal request for extradition, including

23

supporting documentation submitted by the Government of the

24

Republic of Colombia.

25

memoranda relating to the extradition, which the Court has read

26

and considered.

27

conducted an extradition hearing, at which Duran-Reyes appeared

28

with counsel.

The Court

The parties have submitted various

On January 10 and March 7, 2017, the Court

The Court has carefully reviewed the evidence
1

1
2

presented and finds as follows:
1.

The undersigned judicial officer is authorized under 18

3

U.S.C. § 3184 and General Order 05-07 to conduct an extradition

4

hearing.

5

2.

The undersigned judicial officer and the U.S. District

6

Court for the Central District of California have personal

7

jurisdiction over Duran-Reyes and subject-matter jurisdiction

8

over the case, as Duran-Reyes was arrested in this district.

9

§ 3184.

10

3.

See

An extradition treaty between the United States and

11

the Republic of Colombia is currently in force, specifically,

12

the Extradition Treaty signed September 14, 1979, and which took

13

effect March 4, 1982.

14

1 at 10.)1

15

4.

(See Extradition Req., Redacted Exs. vol.

Duran-Reyes is the subject of an April 25, 2011 arrest

16

warrant issued by the First Court of Enforcement of Sentences and

17

Security Measures of Palmira Valle, based on her March 8, 2011

18

resentencing for her conviction for violating Article 274 of the

19

Colombian Criminal Code, trafficking in counterfeit currency.

20

(Id. vol. 2 at 30, 37-38.)

21

5.

The conviction on which Duran-Reyes is wanted and as to

22

which extradition is sought constitutes an extraditable offense

23

under the treaty.

24

that “when the request for extradition relates to a person who

25

has been convicted and sentenced, extradition shall be granted

26

only if the duration of the penalty still to be served amounts to

Specifically, article 2 of the treaty provides

27
1

28

The Court uses the pagination provided
Management/Electronic Case Filing system.
2

by

its

Case

1

at least six months.”

2

below, that is the case here.

3

6.

(Id. vol. 1 at 11-12.)

As explained

Duran-Reyes has not contested that sufficient evidence

4

has been presented to establish probable cause to believe that

5

she committed the crime of which she was convicted, and the Court

6

so finds.

7

permissible because (1) she was allegedly not informed of the

8

government’s appeal of her sentence and was not present for it or

9

the resentencing and (2) extraditing someone for a resentencing

10
11
12

Rather, she contends that extradition is not

is not contemplated by the treaty.
7.

The Court rejects both arguments.
a.

First, Duran-Reyes presented no evidence, not even

13

her own sworn declaration, that she had no notice of the

14

government’s appeal and that she allegedly wasn’t represented by

15

counsel during those proceedings, including the resentencing.

16

Further, even if those facts are true, they are matters for the

17

Secretary of State to consider in deciding whether to extradite,

18

not for this Court to take into account.

19

Fraser, 278 F.2d 77, 78-79 (2d Cir. 1960) (allowing extradition

20

of person convicted in absentia and stating that fugitive’s

21

concerns about due process in requesting nation were for

22

Secretary of State to consider); see also Kamrin v. United

23

States, 725 F.2d 1225, 1228 (9th Cir. 1984) (“[I]t has long been

24

settled that United States due process rights cannot be extended

25

extraterritorially.”).

26

b.

See, e.g., Gallina v.

Second, the treaty applies “if the convicted

27

person has been sentenced,” which is the case with Duran-Reyes.

28

(Extradition Req., Redacted Exs., vol. 1 at 14.)
3

The treaty

1

nowhere bars extradition of people who have also been

2

resentenced.

3

meant to cover.

4

suspended prison term and was resentenced in April 2011 to 55

5

months in custody (see id., vol. 2 at 28, 35), so at the time her

6

extradition was requested in 2012 she had more than six months

7

left to serve of her sentence.

8
9

8.

Thus, Duran-Reyes is among those the treaty is
She was originally sentenced to a 48-month

Based on the foregoing findings, the Court concludes

that Duran-Reyes is extraditable on the counterfeiting conviction

10

and resentencing; the Court hereby certifies this finding to the

11

Secretary of State as required under 18 U.S.C. § 3184.

12

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court deliver

13

forthwith to the Assistant U.S. Attorney a certified copy of this

14

Certification of Extraditability and Order re Bail and forward

15

without delay certified copies of the same to the Secretary of

16

State (to the attention of the Office of the Legal Adviser) and

17

the Director, Office of International Affairs, Criminal Division,

18

U.S. Department of Justice, in Washington, D.C., for appropriate

19

disposition.

20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Duran-Reyes be committed to the

21

custody of the U.S. Marshal for the Central District of

22

California pending final disposition of this matter by the

23

Secretary of State and arrival of agents of the requesting state

24

unless within 30 days of the date of this Order she files a

25

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging the Court’s

26

certification of extradition.

27

surrender to the U.S. Marshal no later than noon on the 30th day

28

after the date of this Order.

If she does not do so, she must

If she does file a habeas petition
4

1

within the 30 days, she is to remain free on bond under the same

2

terms and conditions as previously imposed until the Court orders

3

otherwise.

4

Cir. 1989) (applying special-circumstances bail test in

5

extradition case in which fugitive appealed denial of habeas

6

petition certifying extradition).

7

See Salerno v. United States, 878 F.2d 317, 317 (9th

Should this Order not be challenged through a habeas

8

petition or should the District Judge deny any such petition,

9

Duran-Reyes, together with any evidence seized incidental to her

10

arrest, must be duly transferred to the custody of agents of the

11

requesting state at such time and place as mutually agreed upon

12

by the U.S. Marshal and the duly authorized representatives of

13

the Government of the Republic of Colombia, to be transported to

14

the Republic of Colombia.

15
16

IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED this 20th day of March, 2017.

17
18
19
20
21

____________________________
HON. JEAN P. ROSENBLUTH
U.S. Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5