Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-07056/USCOURTS-ca10-15-07056-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Miguel Angel Gutierrez-Carranza
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

MIGUEL ANGEL GUTIERREZCARRANZA, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-7056 

(E.D. Oklahoma) 

(D.C. No. 6:13-CR-00075-JHP-1) 

_________________________________ 

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).

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

February 12, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-7056 Document: 01019570005 Date Filed: 02/12/2016 Page: 1 
2 

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 

Appellate Case: 15-7056 Document: 01019570005 Date Filed: 02/12/2016 Page: 2 
3 

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.

Appellate Case: 15-7056 Document: 01019570005 Date Filed: 02/12/2016 Page: 3