Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-mj-00074/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-mj-00074-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Elias Mendoza Perez
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10

11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

12 Plaintiff, 

13 v.

14 ELIAS MENDOZA PEREZ, 

15 Defendant. 

16

Case No. 1:15-MJ-0074 SKO 

CERTIFICATION OF EXTRADITABILITY 

AND ORDER OF COMMITTMENT

17 This is an extradition proceeding pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3184. The Government of

18 (“Mexico”) has requested the United States Government extradite Elias Mendoza Perez

19 (“Mendoza Perez”), a fugitive from Mexico‟s justice for the crime of homicide. The extradition

20 request is based upon a 1978 Treaty between the United States and Mexico, which was signed at

21 Mexico City on May 4, 1978, and entered into force on January 25, 1980 (“Treaty”).

22 INTRODUCTION

23 On May 15, 2015, a complaint for the provisional arrest of Mendoza Perez was filed by

24 the United States Government. (Doc. 1.) Acting on the complaint, this Court issued a warrant on

25 May 15, 2015 for the provisional arrest of Mendoza Perez under 18 U.S.C. § 3184. Mendoza

26 Perez was arrested on the provisional warrant on May 27, 2015. (Doc. 15.) Mendoza Perez was

27 arraigned and appointed counsel by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on May 28, 2015 and

28 ordered detained. 

1 

Case 1:15-mj-00074-SKO Document 38 Filed 03/11/16 Page 1 of 11
1 Extradition proceedings were scheduled by the parties. By stipulation of the parties, the 

2 Court set a briefing schedule for filing of briefs in support of and in opposition to extradition. On 

3 January 19, 2016, the Government filed a brief in support of extradition, along with supporting 

4 exhibits. (Doc. 30.) Also on January 19, 2016, Mendoza Perez filed a memorandum and 

5 declaration in opposition to extradition. (Doc. 28-29.) An extradition hearing was held on 

6 February 29, 2016. The government was represented by AUSA Daniel Griffen. Defendant 

7 Mendoza Perez was present, being assisted by the Spanish language interpreter, and represented 

8 by counsel Zepure Attashian. 

9 Based upon all the filings and evidence presented, the Court finds that Elias Mendoza 

10 Perez is extraditable to Mexico for the offense requested, homicide, and certifies this finding to 

11 His Excellency John F. Kerry, Secretary of State, as required under 18 U.S.C. § 3184. 

12 STANDARD FOR CERTIFICATION OF EXTRADITABILITY

13 To obtain a certification of extraditability on behalf of a requesting state, the United States 

14 has the burden of demonstrating each of the following elements: (1) the court possesses subject 

15 matter jurisdiction to conduct extradition proceedings; (2) the court possesses personal 

16 jurisdiction over the person named in the extradition request; (3) a valid extradition treaty exists 

17 between the requesting state and the United States, which is, at all relevant times has been, in full 

18 force and effect; (4) the person named in the extradition request is charged with having 

19 committed a criminal offense within the jurisdiction of the requesting state and the charged 

20 offense is extraditable under the relevant extradition treaty (that is, the offense charged falls 

21 within the terms of the relevant extradition treaty); (5) there is competent evidence establishing 

22 probable cause to believe that the person named in the extradition request committed the charged 

23 offense, and (6) the person named in the extradition request is the person arrested and brought 

24 before the court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3184, 3190; Manta v. Chertoff, 518 F.3d 1134, 1140 (9th Cir. 

25 2008). “Extradition treaties are to be liberally construed so as to effect their purpose, that is, to 

26 surrender fugitives for trial for their alleged offenses.” Valentine v. United States ex rel.

27 Neidecker, 299 U.S. 5, 14, 57 S.Ct. 100, 81 L.Ed. 5 (1936). 

28 ///

2 

Case 1:15-mj-00074-SKO Document 38 Filed 03/11/16 Page 2 of 11
1 DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

2 If the Court determines that all the requisite elements have been met, the findings are 

3 incorporated into the certificate of extraditability. The certificate is forwarded to the Department 

4 of the State. The Secretary of State makes the final decision on whether to surrender the 

5 respondent. 18 U.S.C. § 3186. 

6 1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

7 This Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction to conduct extradition proceedings. 

8 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3184 and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(b)(8), a 

9 Magistrate Judge is authorized to conduct an extradition hearing. Thus, this Court has the 

10 authority to conduct an extradition hearing. 

11 2. Personal Jurisdiction

12 The Court must have personal jurisdiction over the person sought to be extradited. Here, 

13 Mendoza Perez is in the custody in the Eastern District of California. Therefore, the Court has 

14 personal jurisdiction over him. 

15 3. Validity of the Treaty between the United States and Mexico

16 The Court may take judicial notice of the existence of a treaty. Allen v. Markham, 156 

17 F.2d 653, 663 (9th Cir. 1946), rev’d in part on other grounds and aff’d in part sub nom., Clark v.

18 Allen, 331 U.S. 503, 67 S.Ct. 1431, 91 L.Ed. 1633 (1947). 

19 On February 25, 2016, the Government filed under seal a declaration of Julie B. Martin, 

20 an Attorney Advisor in the Office of the Legal Advisor for the Department of State. Ms. Martin‟s 

21 declaration certifies that there is a valid extradition treaty in force between the United States and 

22 Mexico. (Declaration of Julie B. Martin, dated March 30, 2015, filed as Doc. 35, ECF pages 2-4 

23 and filed on February 25, 2016.) A copy of the Treaty is attached to Ms. Martin‟s declaration. 

24 The evidence establishes the Treaty is in full force and effect and remains so during the entire 

25 time from the date of the underlying offense for which extradition is sought, to the date of this 

26 order. Accordingly, the Court takes judicial notice that there is an extradition treaty in full force 

27 and effect between the United States and Mexico which was signed at Mexico City on May 4, 

28 1978, and entered into force on January 25, 1980. 

3 

Case 1:15-mj-00074-SKO Document 38 Filed 03/11/16 Page 3 of 11
1 4. Treaty Coverage

2 On May 15, 2015, the Government filed the extradition request and accompanying 

3 documents, including Arrest Warrant and citations to the applicable Mexican penal codes. (Doc. 

4 1.) These documents indicate that Mexico requests the extradition of Mendoza Perez for the 

5 crime of homicide. This offense is punishable under the laws of both Mexico and the United 

6 States with a maximum prison sentence of no less than one (1) year, as established by Article 2, 

7 paragraph 3 of the Extradition Treaty between Mexico and the United States of America in 

8 relation to item 1 of the Treaty‟s Appendix. (See Declaration of Julie B. Martin, dated March 30, 

9 2015, filed as ECF Doc. 35 on February 25, 2016 and attached Treaty.) 

10 Article 2 of the Treaty provides that extraditable offenses include “wilful acts which fall 

11 within any of the clauses of the Appendix and are punishable in accordance with the laws of both 

12 Contracting Parties by deprivation of liberty the maximum of which shall not be less than one 

13 year.” Treaty, Art. 2 attached as ECF Doc. 35 pages 17-18. Inasmuch as the crime of homicide 

14 is punishable by a deprivation of liberty, the maximum of which exceeds one (1) year in both 

15 countries, the Treaty covers the crime for which Mendoza Perez is sought to be extradited. 

16 5. Probable Cause

17 A central function of the magistrate judge in an extradition proceeding is not to determine 

18 guilt or innocence, but to determine whether probable cause exists to hold the extraditee for trial 

19 in the requesting state. Escobedo v. U.S., 623, F.2d 1098, 1102 n. 5 (5th Cir. 1980). A 

20 magistrate‟s function in making this determination is to ascertain whether there is “any” evidence 

21 establishing reasonable or probable cause. U.S. ex rel Sakaguchi vs. Kaulukukui, 520 F.2d 726, 

22 730 731 (9th Cir. 1975). 

23 a. Evidentiary Standards Determining Probable Cause 

24 The admissibility of evidence in extradition matters is controlled by 18 U.S.C. § 3190 and 

25 “the general extradition law of the United States and the provisions of the” Extradition Treaty. 

26 Emami v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 834 F.2d 1444, 1450 (9th Cir. 1987); accord, Oen YinBChoy v.

27 Robinson, 858 F.2d 1400, 1406 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1106. “The authentication 

28 requirements for documentary evidence are contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3190, which specifies that 

4 

Case 1:15-mj-00074-SKO Document 38 Filed 03/11/16 Page 4 of 11
1 „the certificate of the principal diplomatic or consular officer of the United States resident in such 

2 foreign country shall be proof that submitted documents are authenticated in the manner 

3 required.‟” Barapind v. Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 748 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (per curiam). The 

4 Extradition Treaty states that the documents “accompany[ing] the request for extradition, shall be 

5 received in evidence when: ... b) In the case of a request emanating from the United Mexican 

6 States, they are certified by the principle [sic] diplomatic or consular officer of the United States 

7 in Mexico.” Extradition Treaty, art. 10, § 6. 

8 The Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply. Fed. R. Evid. 1101(d)(3). The standards for 

9 determining whether probable cause is established are the same as those set forth in Rule 5.1 of 

10 the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. In re Extradition of Neto, 1999 WL 627426, at *3 

11 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17, 1999). Thus, the Government need only present competent legal evidence to 

12 cause a person of ordinary prudence and caution to conscientiously entertain a reasonable belief 

13 in the guilt of the accused. 

14 In determining if probable cause exists, the Court can look to the “totality of 

15 circumstances.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). In other words, the Court must 

16 simply decide whether the evidence permits a reasonable belief that the person whose extradition 

17 is sought committed the crime. In re Ribaudo, 2004 WL 213021 at *5 citing Austin v. Healy, 5 F. 

18 3d 598, 605 (2nd Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1165 (1994). This standard looks to whether 

19 there is a fair probability of guilt. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. at 238. As explained by the Supreme 

20 Court in Illinois v. Gates, a probable cause or fair probability decision does not trigger an analysis 

21 based on finely tuned standards such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance 

22 of the evidence. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. at 235, 238 239. 

23 Moreover, under 18 U.S.C.§ 3190, hearsay is admissible. Simmons v. Braun, 627 F.2d 

24 635, 636 (2nd Cir. 1980). The Court may even rely on unsworn statements of absent witnesses. 

25 Id. Although caution must be exercised when hearsay is derived from unsworn statements 

26 (Extradition of Joseph Ben Dak, 2008 WL 1307816 at *4 (S.D.N.Y. April 11, 2008), the Ninth 

27 Circuit has held that even police reports which summarize the statements of witnesses are 

28 competent evidence. Zanazanian v. U.S., 729 F.2d 624, 627 628 (9th Cir. 1984). 

5 

Case 1:15-mj-00074-SKO Document 38 Filed 03/11/16 Page 5 of 11
1 b. Evidence Submitted in Support of Extradition

2 

3 cause: 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28

The United States Government submitted the following evidence relative to probable 

- Formal Extradition Request and Certificate of the United States Department of 

State signed by Ambassador Earl Anthony Wayne. Attached to Ambassador Earl 

Anthony Wayne‟s Certificate (found at ECF Doc. 25, p. 26, 48, 62-69) are documents 

described, authenticated, and certified by Mexican Prosecutor Gerardo Ruiz Terroba as 

follows: 

- Exh. 1 Arrest Warrant issued dated October 31, 2001, as issued by the Civil and 

Criminal Trial Judge in Coalcoman, State of Michoacan for Elias Mendoza Perez 

for the crime of homicide. 

- Exh. 2 Certification of public documents by Clerk for Decisions of the Civil and 

Criminal Trial judge that the statute of limitation runs on September 20, 2022. 

- Exh. 3 Text of legal provision on the date and establishing the elements of the 

crime and penalty. 

- Exh. 4 Photograph of Elias Mendoza Perez. 

- Exh. 5 Birth Certificate of Elias Mendoza Perez. 

- Exh. 6 Statement of witness Abelardo Chavez Perez on September 14, 2001 

before the investigation agent. 

- Exh. 7 Statement of witness Maria del Carmen Ochoa Vazquez on September 14, 

2001 before the investigative agent. 

- Exh. 8 Identification proceeding dated August 1, 2012 made by Abelardo Chavez 

Perez before the investigative agent during which he identified Elias Mendoza 

Perez. 

- Exh. 9 Record of removal of the corpse. 

- Exh. 10 Record of the description of wounds in the corpse on September 14, 2001. 

- Exh. 11 Autopsy performed on the corpse of Juan Diaz Ramirez on September 14, 

2001.

6 

Case 1:15-mj-00074-SKO Document 38 Filed 03/11/16 Page 6 of 11
1 - Exh. 12 Expert opinion on technical inspection, search and collection of evidence 

2 on September 19, 2001. 

3 - Exh. 13 Photographs of the corpse. 

4 - Unnumbered – above exhibits in the Spanish language (ECF Doc. 36, p. 19-86) 

5 Julie Martin, an Attorney Advisor in the Office of the Legal Advisor of the U.S. 

6 Department of State, provided a declaration authenticating a copy of the diplomatic note by which 

7 the extradition request was made and a copy of the Treaty, stating that the Treaty is in force and 

8 the offenses for which extradition is demanded are covered by it, and the documents supporting 

9 the extradition request are properly certified by the principal American diplomatic or consular 

10 officer in Mexico, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3190, so as to enable them to be received in 

11 evidence. (Doc. 35.) The declaration from the State Department with its attachments, including a 

12 copy of the diplomatic note from Mexico, a copy of the Treaty, and the certified documents 

13 submitted in support of the request are attached as ECF Doc. 35 and 36, Government Exhibits 1 

14 to 13. 

15 The Court has reviewed the evidence submitted and receives the documents ECF Doc. 35 

16 and 36, and 1 to 13 into evidence in this matter. These documents comply with the admissibility 

17 requirements of 18 U.S.C.§ 3190. 

18 c. Factual Support for Probable Cause 

19 The Charge alleges that Mendoza Perez committed homicide in violation of the laws of 

20 the Code of Criminal Procedure for the State of Michoacan, Mexico. A brief summary of the 

21 facts supporting this Charge, as outlined in the Government‟s Exhibits (Exh. 1-13 attached to 

22 Doc. 35), is as follows: 

23 On September 14, 2001, Chavez Perez gave statements to the Public Prosecutor. See Exh. 

24 6. On September 14, 2001, Chavez Perez was driving his taxi with Juan Diaz Ramirez in the 

25 passenger front seat. Mendoza Perez drove his truck around to block the taxi, which forced 

26 Chavez Perez to stop. Mendoza Perez got out of his truck, approached the taxi passenger side, 

27 raised his shirt and pulled a revolver out. No one else was present at the scene except for Chavez 

28 Perez, Diaz Ramirez, and Mendoza Perez. When Chavez Perez saw the gun, he got out of the cab 

7 

Case 1:15-mj-00074-SKO Document 38 Filed 03/11/16 Page 7 of 11
1 and started running away. Chavez Perez heard Diaz Ramirez cry out “don‟t shoot me, don‟t shoot 

2 me” as Chavez Perez ran away. Chavez Perez then heard three gunshots. Moments later he 

3 returned to the scene and found the victim dead and Mendoza Perez was gone. Chavez Perez 

4 identified Mendoza Perez from a photo line-up as the man who killed Diaz Ramirez. See Exh. 8. 

5 This Court has carefully reviewed and considered the Exhibits submitted by the 

6 Government and finds there is probable cause that Mendoza Perez committed the crime of 

7 homicide. An eyewitness, Chavez Perez, identified Mendoza Perez, through a photographic 

8 lineup, as the man who pulled a gun on Diaz Ramirez. Chavez Perez also knew who Mendoza 

9 Perez was when he saw him approach the taxi. Chavez Perez left the scene momentarily, but he 

10 heard the gunshots. He immediately went back to the scene and found Diaz Ramirez dead. 

11 Additionally, Ochoa Vazquez, who was living with Mendoza Perez at the time, gave a statement 

12 to the Public Prosecutor that she had a revolver type gun, a .357 Magnum, which belonged to her 

13 deceased husband and the same type of gun seen in Mendoza Perez‟s possession. Mendoza Perez 

14 shared a home with her. When she returned home after hearing the news of the man who had been 

15 shot, she found that her revolver was gone. Therefore, based upon the totality of the evidence, the 

16 Court finds that there is probable cause to believe Mendoza Perez committed the offense for 

17 which extradition is sought. 

18 Mendoza Perez attempts to defeat extradition by offering evidence of self-defense. In his 

19 declaration (Doc. 29), Mendoza Perez states that the victim in fact approached him with a gun 

20 and the Mendoza Perez shot to defend himself. The Court, however, does not consider this 

21 evidence. The Ninth Circuit has held that evidence offered by a fugitive to contradict the 

22 requesting state‟s evidence is not admissible in an extradition hearing. See, e.g., Barapind v.

23 Enomoto, 400 F.3d 744, 749 50 (9th. Cir 2005). The evidence offered by Mendoza Perez would 

24 require this Court to weight conflicting evidence. It may not do so. Barapind, 400 F.3d at 749- 

25 50. 

26 6. Identity of Elias Mendoza Perez

27 The complaint and the extradition packet are competent evidence upon which Mendoza 

28 Perez‟s identity may be established. See, e .g., Glucksman v. Henkel, 221 U.S. 508, 513, 31 S.Ct. 

8 

Case 1:15-mj-00074-SKO Document 38 Filed 03/11/16 Page 8 of 11
1 704 (1911) (finding that photographs of the fugitive provided by the requesting state may be used 

2 to make an identity determination in international extradition matters). “Whether the person 

3 before the court is the accused is part of the magistrate judge‟s probable cause analysis.” Manta

4 v. Chertoff, 518 F.3d 1134, 1140, 1143 (9th Cir. 2008). There must be “competent proof” of 

5 identity. Id. “[T]he credibility of the reported identification is a matter committed to the 

6 magistrate [judge].” Id. at 1145 (citation omitted). There is no per se rule that specifies which 

7 identification procedures are competent for probable cause purposes. Quinn v. Robinson, 783 

8 F.2d 776, 815 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied. 469 U.S. 882 (1986). “An identification based on a 

9 single photograph may be competent evidence of identity in an extradition proceeding.” Manta, 

10 518 F.3d at 1145 (citation omitted). 

11 Mendoza Perez has not contested his identity as the person accused of the crime for which 

12 extradition is sought. 

13 7. Rule of Non-Inquiry

14 Lastly, Petitioner argues that to extradite him to Mexico would violate the Convention 

15 Against Torture, and that an exception to extradition on humanitarian grounds should apply.1

16 Mendoza Perez argues that the Court should create a “humanitarian exception” to extradition. He 

17 acknowledges that, while no court has ever denied extradition on a fugitive‟s anticipated 

18 treatment in the requesting country (Doc. 28 p.3:13), the Court should nonetheless deny an 

19 otherwise valid extradition. Mendoza Perez argues he fears he will be tortured and killed if 

20 returned to Mexico. He submits his declaration in which he states: (1) that he received death 

21 threats and saw a suspicious man walk by his business in Mexico in 2001; (2) that his son-in-law 

22 was killed in 2012 and his brother was shot in 2013, both in Mexico; and (3) that he believes the 

23 Mexican authorities and government “cannot be trusted” based on an unauthenticated news report 

24 concerning students who disappeared in Mexico. He believes the decedent, Juan Diaz Ramirez‟s,

25 1 The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or

26 Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, 23 I.L.M. 1027. It was adopted by the United Nations General

Assembly in 1984 and is implemented at 8 C.F.R. §1208.16-18. See S. Exec. Rep. No. 101 30, at 2 (1990). Article 3

of the Convention provides, in relevant part: “1. No State Party shall expel, return („refouler‟) or extradite a person to 27 another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to

torture.” 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 (1988). The Convention entered into force for the United States in November 1994. U.S.

28 Dep‟t of State, Treaties in Force, 182 (2007); 22 C.F.R. § 95.1(a).

9 

Case 1:15-mj-00074-SKO Document 38 Filed 03/11/16 Page 9 of 11
1 family is at fault for his family member‟s death. 

2 The Ninth Circuit has “long adhered to the rule of non-inquiry” that it is the role of the 

3 Secretary of State, not the courts, to determine whether extradition should be denied on 

4 humanitarian grounds or on account of the treatment that the fugitive is likely to receive upon his 

5 return to the requesting state. Prasoprat v. Benov, 421 F.3d 1009, 1016 (9th Cir. 2005). Indeed, 

6 the Ninth Circuit has stated that an extradition magistrate lacks discretion to inquire into the 

7 conditions that might await a fugitive upon return to the requesting country. Id. It is the 

8 Secretary of State who exercises discretion to extradite based upon humanitarian concerns. “The 

9 Secretary of State, exercising executive discretion through delegation of this authority by the 

10 President, may refuse to extradite a relator despite a judicial determination that extradition would 

11 be compatible with the terms of the applicable treaty.” Id. at 1017. 

12 The rule of non-inquiry bars consideration of Mendoza Perez‟s contentions regarding his 

13 treatment upon extradition, and application of a humanitarian exception is unwarranted. 

14 Prasoprat, 421 F.3d at 1016 n. 5 (“[T]he rule of non-inquiry does not prevent an extraditee who 

15 fears torture upon surrender to the requesting government from petitioning for habeas corpus 

16 review of the Secretary of State's decision to extradite him.”). 

17 Mendoza Perez relies on dicta in a Second Circuit case arguing that this Court could 

18 create a humanitarian exception. Gallina v. Fraser, 278 F.2d 77, 79 (2nd Cir. 1960), stated in 

19 dicta:

“We can imagine situations where the relator, upon extradition, would be subject 20 to procedures or punishment so antipathetic to a federal court's sense of decency as

21 to require reexamination of [the general principle upholding extradition].” 

22 Id. at 79. 

23 In light of Ninth Circuit authority expressly holding contrary, this Court will not evaluate 

24 the Gallina case. 

25 FINDINGS AND CERTIFICATION OF EXTRADITABILITY

26 For the reasons discussed above, the Court grants Mexico‟s request for the extradition of 

27 Elias Mendoza Perez and makes the following findings and conclusions in support of this 

28 Certification:

10 

Case 1:15-mj-00074-SKO Document 38 Filed 03/11/16 Page 10 of 11
1 1. This Court has jurisdiction over the proceedings; 

2 2. This Court has jurisdiction over Elias Mendoza Perez; 

3 3. There is a valid extradition treaty between the United States and the Government 

4 of Mexico, and the treaty is in full force and effect; 

5 4. The offense of Homicide is an extraditable offense consisting of conduct 

6 considered to be criminal in both the United States and Mexico, and which is 

7 punishable by deprivation of liberty for a period of more than one year. 

8 5. Mendoza Perez is sought for offense for which the extradition treaty permits 

9 extradition. 

10 6. There is probable cause to believe that Mendoza Perez, the same person identify in 

11 the extradition request from the Government of Mexico, committed the offense for 

12 which extradition is sought. 

13 The Court HEREBY CERTIFIES the above findings to the Secretary of State, pursuant to 

14 18 U.S.C. § 3184. 

15 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that a certified copy of this Certification of Extraditability be 

16 delivered by the Clerk to the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to this case for 

17 transmission to the Secretary of State. 

18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Elias Mendoza Perez be committed to the custody of 

19 the United States Marshal for this District pending final disposition of this matter by the Secretary 

20 of State and surrender to designated agents of the Government of Mexico, at which time the 

21 extraditee Elias Mendoza Perez will be transferred to the agents of the requesting state for return 

22 to Mexico. 

23 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

25 Dated: March 10, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27 

28 

11 

Case 1:15-mj-00074-SKO Document 38 Filed 03/11/16 Page 11 of 11