UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-22829-MC-LFL

IN THE MATTER OF 

THE EXTRADITION OF

CESAR HORACIO DUARTE JAQUEZ 

__________________________________/

MOTION TO SET CONSOLIDATED BRIEFING SCHEDULE

This motion seeks a consolidated briefing schedule for the parties’ final extradition filings 

and Cesar Duarte’s motion to dismiss (DE29). Duarte’s motion asserts the statute of limitations 

as a defense to the extradition request. Because the final extradition hearing will afford the Court 

the opportunity to rule on all defenses to certification, there is no need for separate briefing and/or 

a separate hearing to resolve the motion to dismiss. Thus, the government requests a briefing 

schedule permitting 15 days to file a 25-page omnibus response to both the motion to dismiss and 

Duarte’s anticipated opposition to extradition. This schedule best serves judicial economy and 

avoids piecemeal litigation by preserving the date for the final extradition hearing, presently set 

for December 10, 2020.

The undersigned has conferred with Duarte’s counsel, who opposes the request for a 

consolidated briefing schedule. 

BACKGROUND

Mexico seeks Duarte’s extradition to try him on charges of aggravated embezzlement and 

aggravated conspiracy, in violation of the criminal laws of the state of Chihuahua, Mexico. A 

judge in Chihuahua issued a warrant for Duarte’s arrest on October 8, 2019. Req. at 115-202.

In July 2020, the United States arrested Duarte in Miami, Florida, and filed an extradition

complaint in this District (DE1). This Court denied Duarte release on bond pending the resolution 

Case 1:20-mc-22829-UNA Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2020 Page 1 of 7
2

of this proceeding, and Duarte currently remains in the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service.

The parties already have begun submitting material in anticipation of the final extradition 

hearing. On August 30, 2020, the government filed its final memorandum in support of extradition

(DE23). The Court initially gave Duarte until September 30, 2020 to respond, with an anticipated 

final extradition hearing date of November 10, 2020 (DE25). Duarte sought, and the government 

did not oppose, an extension to allow Duarte to submit a motion to dismiss and to have additional 

time to prepare his response to the extradition request. See (DE27). Under the Court’s current 

briefing schedule, Duarte has until October 30, 2020 to respond to the extradition memorandum

(two months since the government’s filing), the government has 15 days to reply, and the final 

extradition hearing will occur on December 10, 2020 (DE28).

On September 30, 2020, Duarte moved to dismiss the extradition request on statute of 

limitations grounds (DE29). Under default rules, the government’s response is due on October 14, 

2020.

DISCUSSION

At the final extradition hearing, this Court will consider the requesting country’s evidence 

and determine whether the legal requirements for certification of extraditability—as defined in the

applicable extradition treaty, statutes, and case law—have been established. See Charlton v. Kelly, 

229 U.S. 447, 461 (1913) (analogizing extradition hearing to a preliminary hearing in a criminal 

case); Martin v. Warden, Atlanta Penitentiary, 993 F.2d 824, 828-29 (11th Cir. 1993). Under 

certain treaties, including the governing treaty here, the statute of limitations is one possible 

defense. See, e.g., Pajkanovic v. United States, 353 F. App’x 183 (11th Cir. 2009). 

Case 1:20-mc-22829-UNA Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2020 Page 2 of 7
3

It is appropriate for this Court to consider that defense alongside the other arguments that 

Duarte will make at the final extradition hearing. Indeed, the final extradition hearing is the only 

hearing contemplated by the governing statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3184. Section 3184 authorizes a 

magistrate judge to issue an arrest warrant so “that [the fugitive] may be brought before such 

justice, judge, or magistrate judge, to the end that the evidence of criminality may be heard and 

considered.” Id. “If, on such hearing, [the judge] deems the evidence sufficient to sustain the 

charge under the provisions of the proper treaty,” then the Court “shall certify the same . . . to the 

Secretary of State.” Id. Thus, the statute does not anticipate that the court will entertain any 

dispositive motions—such as a motion to dismiss—before the final extradition hearing.

Any other approach would result in piecemeal litigation and would not serve the interests 

of judicial economy. Many, if not all, of the potential defenses in an extradition proceeding are 

legal in nature. If a party could raise such defenses before the final extradition hearing by way of 

a motion to dismiss, it would draw out the matter considerably, prejudicing the interests of the 

requesting state in a timely resolution of their prosecution of the fugitive.

Duarte likely will contend that the Court should resolve the limitations question first 

because, if this Court grants him complete relief, it will obviate the need for him to file his 

extradition response or for a final extradition hearing. Alternatively, he may argue that the 

elimination of some portion of his illegal conduct based on the statute of limitations would narrow 

the scope of the final hearing. However, it is notable that Duarte himself concedes that the 

conspiracy charge is not barred by U.S. law, see (DE29:15),1 and the Mexican judge who issued 

 1 This page number refers to the CM/ECF header number, not the document’s internal pagination.

Case 1:20-mc-22829-UNA Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2020 Page 3 of 7
4

Duarte’s arrest warrant determined that the charges complied with the Mexican statute of 

limitations, see Req. at 196 (explaining that, under Mexican law, the last possible date to bring the 

conspiracy charge was August 27, 2024). The U.S. will respond more fully to explain why neither 

the substantive nor conspiracy charges are time-barred and to identify the numerous errors or 

oversights in Duarte’s purported expert analysis. Leaving that aside, at a minimum, the survival 

of the conspiracy count means that this litigation will proceed to a final extradition hearing. 

Moreover, contrary to Duarte’s view that the statute of limitations could narrow the facts that this 

Court needs to consider, the parties still will need to address every transaction because the entirety 

of the embezzlement scheme will be relevant to determining whether there is probable cause on 

the overarching conspiracy count.

The government initiated this proceeding in July 2020 by filing its extradition complaint. 

Since then, the parties have had ample time to evaluate the charges and prepare for the final 

hearing. To honor our country’s treaty obligations to Mexico, we should strive to conclude this 

proceeding in a timely fashion by holding Duarte’s extradition hearing in December 2020 as 

scheduled.

Thus, the government proposes that this Court consolidate the motion to dismiss—which 

raises one defense available to Duarte under the governing treaty—with the final extradition 

proceeding where the Court will consider all of his defenses. The proposed consolidation would 

produce the following deadlines:

October 30, 2020 – Duarte’s response in opposition to extradition

Case 1:20-mc-22829-UNA Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2020 Page 4 of 7
5

November 16, 20202 – United States’ omnibus response to Duarte’s motion to dismiss and 

reply in support of extradition

December 10, 2020 – Final extradition hearing

The government also respectfully requests that the Court provide it with a 25-page limit 

for its omnibus response, which will combine the discussion of the statute of limitation issues with 

any other defenses that Duarte may raise. To the extent that Duarte wishes to reply in support of 

his motion to dismiss after November 16, there is ample time between that date and December 10.

As noted above, the government conferred with counsel for Duarte and confirmed that 

Duarte opposes the request for a consolidated briefing schedule.

Dated: October 5, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

Ariana Fajardo Orshan

United States Attorney

By: /s Jason Wu 

Jason Wu

Assistant United States Attorney

Court ID No. A5502299

99 N.E. 4th Street 

Miami, FL 33132

(305) 961-9226

Jason.Wu@usdoj.gov

/s Christopher J. Smith 

Christopher J. Smith

Associate Director

Office of International Affairs

 2 The current schedule provides the government 15 days to reply, and that deadline falls on 

November 14, a Saturday. Thus, the government has until November 16 to submit its filing. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C).

Case 1:20-mc-22829-UNA Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2020 Page 5 of 7
6

Criminal Division

U.S. Department of Justice

Court ID No. A5502264

1301 New York Avenue NW

Washington, D.C. 20530

(202) 532-4254

Christopher.J.Smith@usdoj.gov

/s Rebecca A. Haciski 

Rebecca A. Haciski

Trial Attorney

Office of International Affairs

Criminal Division

U.S. Department of Justice

Court ID No. A5502265

1301 New York Avenue NW

Washington, D.C. 20530

(202) 616-2534

Rebecca.Haciski@usdoj.gov

Case 1:20-mc-22829-UNA Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2020 Page 6 of 7
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was uploaded onto 

the Court=s CM/ECF system and sent via CM/ECF to all counsel of record. 

/s Jason Wu 

Jason Wu

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 1:20-mc-22829-UNA Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/05/2020 Page 7 of 7