1 The Government does not concede that an valid amparo petition has even been filed or that the defense’s

translation provided is correct. The unofficial copy filed with the Court states that it was filed in Cancun,

although the Courts of original jurisdiction are in different provinces. This calls into question the actual

validity of the jurisdiction of the amparo decision. 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

)

In the Matter of the Extradition of )

MARIA del ROSARIO MORENO-VAZQUEZ ) 3:06-CV-761-MEF-CSC

a/k/a MARIA COONLEY )

)

United States’s Response Brief for Hearing on Amparo

The United States opposes Maria del Rosario Moreno-Vazquez’srequest for a hearing

on amparo. Although a collateral attack apparently1

 has occurred in Mexico, MorenoVazquez overstates its legal implications for this Court in her extradition matter. The

extradition case before the Court is unchanged. Under Mexican law, an amparo decision

(similar procedurally to a writ of habeas corpus under U.S. law), does not change either (1)

that charges remain pending against Moreno-Vazquez, or (2) that the arrest warrants are still

in full effect. In fact, the practical effect of this type of decision under Mexican law is that

once Moreno-Vazquez is returned to Mexico, she will be placed at the disposition of the

amparo judge for resolution of the amparo claim before the criminal proceedings against her

are allowed to move forward. Finally, extradition will not prejudice Moreno-Vazquez –

nothing prevents Moreno-Vazquez from raising arguments to the Secretary of State or

continuing her amparo litigation in Mexico. 

Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 32 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 1 of 4
 2

 “[W]ith respect to the government actions being contested regarding the EXTRADITION ORDER, . .

. it [is] proper to DENY THE TEMPORARY STAY OF EXECUTION of the Extradition Order as requested

by the petitioner [Moreno-Vazquez], since such a[n] action of extradition would take place in a foreign

country and the scope and jurisdiction of the Amparo Law is ruled by a principle of territoriality, that is, it

is circumscribed to Mexican territory, and it cannot have any effects beyond our borders.” Doc. No. 21-2,

at 3 (Moreno-Vazquez’s translation of Temporary Stay of Execution in Reference to a Writ of Amparo).

 3 Id.

 4 Moreno-Vazquez’s situation is distinguishable from the case she cites, In re Extradition of Santos, 473

F.Supp.2d 1030 (C.D. Cal. 2006). In that case, the court described the situation Santos faces as “delayed by

circumstances which in this court’s experience are wholly absent in a run-of-the-mill extradition case.” 473

2

1. The Original Arrest Warrants Are Still Valid.

The original arrest warrants are still valid for extradition purposes. First, under

Mexican Supreme Court procedure, and as the Mexican Court noted in its opinion, the Court

emphasizes that Moreno-Vazquez’s request to stay extradition is denied.2

 Moreover, the

Court noted that the stay of the case in Mexico in no way affects Mexico’s extradition

order/request or ongoing proceedings in the United States to place the defendant before

Mexican authorities.3

According to Gregory Stevens, Department of Justice Attaché with the United States

Embassy in Mexico City, Moreno-Vazquez apparently has filed an amparo petition with a

Mexican court presumably claiming that, in issuing the warrant against her in the Mexican

case, her rights have been violated or that the warrant is in some way defective. The amparo

court has not made any ruling on the merits of that claim, whatever it may be, but simply has

taken the routine step to stay the Mexican criminal proceedings against the defendant – or,

in other words, preserve the status quo – until the amparo claim can be resolved. This action

in no way affects the extradition matter pending before this Court.4

 

Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 32 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 2 of 4
F.Supp. at 1038 (finding that having two arrest warrants issued and ultimately challenged successfully under

the amparo process, with a likely third arrest warrant to be issued, warranted Santos’s release on bail as a

special circumstance). The Santos case remains pending before the Central District of California.

 5 Yapp v. Reno, 26 F.3d 1562, 1568 (11th Cir. 1994) (noting that “the rule of non-inquiry precludes

extradition magistrates from assessing the investigative, judicial, and penal systems of foreign nations when

reviewing an extradition request”) (citations omitted); see also Basso v. U.S. Marshal, Case No. 07-14944,

2008 WL 2066440, *1 (11th Cir. May 16, 2008) (same).

 6 United States v. Kin-Hong, 110 F.3d 103, 110 (1st Cir. 1997). 

3

Here, if this Court issues the certificate of extraditability, and the Secretary of State

issues the extradition order, Moreno-Vazquez will be extradited and returned to Mexico.

While it is true that in the event Moreno-Vazquez prevails through multiple appeals in

Mexico, Moreno-Vazquez would go free, that is an issue of Mexican law and procedure.

2. The “Rule of Non-Inquiry” Constrains the Court’s Inquiry into this Matter.

Moreno-Vazquez should not remain in the United States while she pursues litigation

in Mexico – that is not the purpose of extradition. 

The purpose of this Court’s hearing is to review compliance of treaty terms, it is not

to analyze Mexican criminal procedure. Indeed, the “rule of non-inquiry” requires

extradition courts to refrain from undertaking inquiries into the justice systems of foreign

countries.5

 The judicial officer’s inquiry is limited to a narrow set of issues concerning the

existence of a treaty, the offense charged, and the quantum of evidence offered.6

 Those

elements have been met in this case. The treaty exists, defendant has been charged with child

trafficking and forgery of a public document, and there is probable cause to believe defendant

committed these crimes. Since Moreno-Vazquez is currently availing herself of Mexican

procedures, there can be no prejudice to returning her to Mexico. She can continue her

Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 32 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 3 of 4
4

litigation in that forum – a forum she has chosen to use and the forum in which her interests

are most at stake.

Respectfully submitted this the 9th of June, 2008.

LEURA G. CANARY

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ Christopher Snyder

CHRISTOPHER A. SNYDER

Assistant United States Attorney

131 Clayton Street

Montgomery, AL 36104

Phone: (334)223-7280

Fax: (334)223-7135

E-mail: christopher.a.snyder@usdoj.gov

/s/ Andrea Tisi

Andrea Tisi

Senior Trial Attorney

Office of International Affairs

Criminal Division

U.S. Department of Justice

Phone: (202) 353-4469

Fax: (202) 514-0080

E-mail: Andrea.Tisi@usdoj.gov

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on June 9, 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing with the

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to

the following: Ben Elton Bruner. 

/s/ Christopher Snyder

CHRISTOPHER A. SNYDER

Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 32 Filed 06/09/2008 Page 4 of 4