1

IN THE 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

 

RESPODENT CESAR DUARTE’S RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT’S 

MOTION TO SET CONSOLIDATED BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Respondent César Duarte Horacio Jáquez (“Mr. Duarte”), through the 

undersigned counsel, responds to the Government’s Motion to Set Consolidated 

Briefing Schedule, ECF No. 31. For reasons more fully explained below, the 

Government’s motion should be denied.

On September 19, 2020, Mr. Duarte moved for an extension of time to respond 

to the Government’s extradition memorandum, requesting that he be first allowed to 

move to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds and have that motion disposed of 

before responding to the government’s extradition memorandum. See Unopposed 

Motion for Extension Time to Respond to Government’s Memorandum in Support of 

Extradition, ECF No 27. The motion specifically requested that Mr. Duarte be 

permitted until October 30, 2020 to file his response to the Government’s Extradition 

Memorandum, or such time as the parties may agree, and/or the such time as the 

Court requires after it rules on the motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds. 

Id. This request made sense, as the Motion to Dismiss—if granted—would obviate 

the need for the parties to litigate, and the Court to decide, the more complex issues 

Case 1:20-mc-22829-UNA Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/09/2020 Page 1 of 6
2

presented in the Extradition Memorandum. See ECF No. 27 at ¶ 6. The Court 

granted the motion, permitting Mr. Duarte to move to dismiss on statute of 

limitations grounds by September 30, 2020 and re-setting the deadline to October 30, 

2020 for filing his memorandum in opposition to the government’s memorandum in 

support of extradition, ECF No. 28. On September 30, 2020, Mr. Duarte moved to 

dismiss the Extradition Complaint in its entirety on statute of limitations grounds. 

See Mr. Duarte’s Motion to Dismiss Extradition Complaint, ECF No. 29. 

Before Mr. Duarte filed the Motion for Extension of Time (ECF 27), the parties 

conferred as required by the Local Rules. In doing so, they discussed that Mr. Duarte 

would be requesting to first litigate the statute of limitations issues and the 

government agreed. Hence, the motion was filed as an unopposed motion. It would 

appear, however, that the government now regrets its agreement and instead wants 

Mr. Duarte to file his response to the Government’s Extradition Memorandum so that 

it may file an omnibus response (reply) to both the Motion to Dismiss and Mr. 

Duarte’s response to the Government’s Extradition Memorandum. See generally 

Government Motion to Consolidate Briefing, ECF No. 31. In other words, the 

government no longer agrees with disposing of the motion dismiss before proceeding 

to a final extradition hearing. The government even appears to be arguing that 18 

U.S.C. § 3184 does not permit the Court to entertain the motion dismiss before the 

final extradition hearing. Id. at 3. 

None of the authorities which the government cites, however, lend any support 

to its argument that the Court cannot entertain Mr. Duarte’s motion to dismiss before 

Case 1:20-mc-22829-UNA Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/09/2020 Page 2 of 6
3

holding the final extradition hearing. See ECF No. 31, Pages 2-3 (citing Charlton v. 

Kelly, 229 U.S. 447, 461 (1913), Martin v. Warden, Atlanta Penitentiary, 993 F.2d 824, 

828-29 (11th Cir. 1993), Pajikanovic v. United States, 353 F. App.’x 183 (11th Cir. 2009) 

and 18 U.S.C. § 1384). Kelly involved the Court’s refusal to permit the respondent or 

defendant to present evidence of his insanity. 229 U.S. at 460-462. Martin took on 

the question of whether the respondent had a right to speedy extradition. 993 F.2d 

at 823-29. The Eleventh Circuit found he did not have any such right. Id. And 

Pajikovanic simply involved an appeal addressing, in addition to other issues, how to 

construe the language dealing with the statute of limitations in the treaty between 

Bosnia and Herzegovina and the United States. 252 F. App.’x at 186-188. While it 

is true that extradition hearings are limited in scope by comparison to full blown 

trials, there is nothing in 18 U.S.C. § 3184 or case law that prevents an extradition 

court from ruling on Mr. Duarte’s motion dismiss before holding a final extradition 

hearing. 

Given that the statute of limitations is a defense specifically provided for in 

the treaty between the United States and Mexico, see Ext. Treaty, art. 7, May 4, 1978, 31 

U.S.T. 5059, and that its disposition may result in dismissal of Mexico’s extradition 

request or, alternatively, it may impact the scope of the offenses to be litigated during 

the hearing, the Court is undoubtedly free to first dispose of the statute of limitations 

issues before proceeding to a final extradition hearing. For precedent on the matter, 

the Court need not look any further than an extradition case recently litigated in this 

district before now Chief Magistrate John O’Sullivan. See Arias Leiva v. Wilson, 2018 

Case 1:20-mc-22829-UNA Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/09/2020 Page 3 of 6
4

WL 9662551 (S.D. Fla. September 6, 2018).1 In that case, the government filed its 

extradition complaint on behalf of Colombia on August 11, 2016 and Mr. Arias was 

arrested shortly thereafter on August 24, 2016. Id.at *2. On October 24, 2016, Mr. 

Arias and his lawyers moved to dismiss the extradition complaint on the grounds that 

the applicable treaty was invalid and therefore the Court lacked subject matter 

jurisdiction. Id. Magistrate Judge O’Sullivan heard the motion to dismiss on 

November 17, 2016 and thereafter both parties submitted supplemental briefing and 

the Government submitted additional evidence on the question of the validity of the 

treaty. Id. On February 6, 2017, the Judge denied the motion to dismiss. Id. at *3. 

The parties then submitted additional memoranda and the Judge held the final 

extradition hearing on September 28, 2017. Id.at *4. Hence, as set forth in Mr. 

Duarte’s motion for extension of time (ECF 27), which the Court granted and to which 

the government offered no objection, first litigating his motion to dismiss and the 

issues raised therein is an entirely reasonable manner in which to handle this matter. 

Moreover, the Government is incorrect that consolidating briefing on Mr. 

Duarte’s Motion to Dismiss and the Government’s Memorandum in Support of 

Extradition is in the interest of judicial economy. See ECF No. 31 at 3. The Motion 

to Dismiss seeks to resolve the entire case utilizing a straightforward mathematical 

calculation. See Yapp v. Reno, 26 F.3d 1562, 1568 (11th Cir. 1994) (“Determining 

whether a statute of limitations has run requires a mathematical calculation that can 

1 Accord In re Extradition of Nunez, 2011 WL 281030, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 

2011); In re Extradition of Hurtado, 622 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2009).

Case 1:20-mc-22829-UNA Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/09/2020 Page 4 of 6
5

usually be performed simply by referring to the applicable statutory provision.”). 

Thus, resolving it first may eliminate the need for the Court to address the litany of 

issues raised in the Memorandum in Support of Extradition. The Government, on 

the other hand, would have Mr. Duarte and the Court expend valuable resources on 

issues that may be rendered superfluous by the statute of limitations. This is quite 

the opposite of judicial economy. 

Finally, it should not be forgotten that Mr. Duarte is litigating from a jail cell 

without the same access to his lawyers that he would have had without a global 

pandemic. While Mexico, for entirely political reasons, may be in a hurry to prosecute 

Mr. Duarte in Chihuahua, the fact remains that the Government filed its extradition 

request on behalf of Mexico during an unprecedented pandemic. 

WHEREFORE, for the forgoing reasons, Mr. Duarte respectfully requests that 

the Court deny the Government’s Motion to Consolidate Briefing, and set a deadline 

to file his memorandum responding to the government’s memorandum in support of 

extradition (ECF No. 23) after the Court rules on Mr. Duarte’s motion to dismiss on 

statute of limitations grounds (ECF No. 29). If the government needs additional time 

to file its response to the motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds, we have 

no objection to whatever reasonable period the Court may grant if such a request is 

made. 

Case 1:20-mc-22829-UNA Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/09/2020 Page 5 of 6
6

Dated: October 9, 2020. Respectfully submitted,

BELL ROSQUETE REYES ESTEBAN, PLLC

999 Ponce De Leon Blvd.

Suite 1120 - Penthouse

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Telephone: (305) 570-1610

Facsimile: (305) 570-1599

By: ___/S/ Henry P. Bell______

HENRY P. BELL

Florida Bar No. 0090689

hbell@brresq.com

-andBy: /S/ Armando Rosquete 

ARMANDO ROSQUETE

Florida Bar No. 648434

arosquete@brresq.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 9, 2020 a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing has been furnished electronically via ECF to all counsel of record.

 By: ___/S/ Henry P. Bell______

HENRY P. BELL

Florida Bar No. 0090689

hbell@brresq.com

Case 1:20-mc-22829-UNA Document 34 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/09/2020 Page 6 of 6