United States v. Gutierrez-Carranza , 637 F. App'x 507 ( 2016 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT February 12, 2016
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 15-7056
(E.D. Oklahoma)
MIGUEL ANGEL GUTIERREZ- (D.C. No. 6:13-CR-00075-JHP-1)
CARRANZA,
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
_________________________________
Before GORSUCH, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Mr. Miguel Angel Gutierrez-Carranza was convicted on federal
charges and faced unrelated charges in Mexico. After the federal
conviction, he requested extradition to Mexico and the district court denied
the request based on a “lack of jurisdiction.” R. vol. I, at 7. We affirm.
*
Mr. Gutierrez-Carranza requests oral argument, but we conclude that
oral argument would not be helpful. As a result, we are deciding the appeal
based on the briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except
under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value under
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a) and 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
The defendant had no power to initiate his own extradition. The
court’s power to order extradition derives from 18 U.S.C. § 3184. Under
§ 3184, a district court can initiate extradition proceedings only after the
federal government files a sworn complaint for extradition based on a
request from a foreign jurisdiction. 18 U.S.C. § 3184; see Grin v. Shine,
187 U.S. 181, 186 (1902) (recognizing, with respect to a virtually identical
predecessor to § 3184, that “a complaint must be made under oath charging
the crime” for which extradition is sought). Therefore, extradition could
take place only after the government filed a complaint based on a request
from Mexico to extradite Mr. Gutierrez-Carranza. 18 U.S.C. § 3184; see
also Extradition Treaty Between the United States of America and the
United Mexican States, Mex.-U.S., art. 10, May 4, 1978, 31 U.S.T. 5059
(obligating the United States to seek extradition after receiving an
extradition request from Mexico).
Mexico never requested the extradition of Mr. Gutierrez-Carranza;
accordingly, the government never filed a complaint seeking extradition
2
under § 3184. In these circumstances, the district court had no authority to
order extradition. Thus, we affirm. 1
Entered for the Court
Robert E. Bacharach
Circuit Judge
1
The district court described the defect in the claim as jurisdictional.
R. vol. I, at 7. But “a rule should not be referred to as jurisdictional unless
it governs a court’s adjudicatory capacity, that is, its subject-matter or
personal jurisdiction.” Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 435 (2011).
Mr. Gutierrez-Carranza’s claim fails because the district court lacked
statutory authority to initiate extradition proceedings, not because the
district court lacked subject-matter or personal jurisdiction.
3