IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

In the Matter of the Extradition of )

)

) CIV. NO. 3:06cv761-CSC

MARIA del ROSARIO MORENO-VAZQUEZ ) (WO) 

a/k/a MARIA COONLEY )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On August 22, 2008, upon completion of an evidentiary hearing and all other

proceedings required by 18 U.S.C. § 3184, the undersigned Magistrate Judge certified to

the Secretary of State for the United States of America that the evidence of criminality is

sufficient, under the provisions of the Extradition Treaty between the United States and

Mexico, May 4, 1978, T.I.A.S. No. 9656, 31 U.S.T. 5059, to sustain the charge of

trafficking in minors brought by the United Mexican States against Maria del Rosario

Moreno-Vazquez a/k/a Maria Coonley. (Docs. # 48-49).

Now pending before the court is Respondent Maria del Rosario MorenoVazquez’s (“Moreno-Vazquez”) motion for release from custody (doc. # 52) filed on

October 22, 2008. Moreno-Vazquez argues that she should be released from custody

because she has not been released to the Mexican authorities within two months of the

Court’s Certificate of Extraditability and Order for Commitment (doc. # 49) entered on

August 22, 2008. The United States opposes her release. (Doc. # 54). 

Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 56 Filed 11/17/08 Page 1 of 3
 Moreno-Vazquez initially asserted that she was entitled to release pursuant to Article 11 of the 1

treaty between the United States and Mexico. See Doc. # 52. In her reply to the United States’ response,

she concedes that 18 U.S.C. § 3188 is the applicable statute. See Doc. # 55.

2

This matter is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3188.1

Whenever any person who is committed for rendition to a foreign

government to remain until delivered up in pursuance of a requisition, is not

so delivered and conveyed out of the United States within two calendar

months after such commitment, over and above the time actually required to

convey the prisoner from the jail to which he was committed, by the

readiest way, out of the United States, any judge of the United States, or of

any State, upon application made to him by or on behalf of the person so

committed, and upon proof made to him that reasonable notice of the

intention to make such application has been given to the Secretary of State,

may order the person so committed to be discharged out of custody, unless

sufficient cause is shown to such judge why such discharge ought not be

ordered. 

The purpose of § 3188 “was to ensure prompt action by the extraditing government

as well as by this government so that the accused would not suffer incarceration in this

country or uncertainty as to [her] status for long periods of time through no fault of [her]

own.” Jimenez v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Southern Dist. of Fla., Miami Div., 84 S.Ct. 14,

18 (1963) (Goldberg, J., in chambers).

On August 29, 2008, Moreno-Vazquez filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus,

Moreno-Vazquez v. Hardy, Civ. Act. No. 2:08cv716-MEF (M.D. Ala.), challenging the

certificate of extraditability and the order for commitment. Her habeas petition remains

pending. Consequently, the two month period contemplated by § 3188 does not

commence until Moreno-Vazquez’s habeas petition is finally adjudicated. 

The common-sense reading of § 3188 is that where as here, the accused has

Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 56 Filed 11/17/08 Page 2 of 3
3

instituted and pursued review of [her] extradition order, the two-month

period runs from the time [her] claims are finally adjudicated, not from the

time of the original commitment order [s]he has been challenging. In any

event, since the delays were attributable to the proceedings prosecuted by

petitioner, there certainly was ‘sufficient cause’ for the delay, within the

intended meaning of § 3188.

Jimenez, 84 S.Ct. at 18. See also Liberto v. Emery, 724 F.2d 23, 25 n.2 (2 Cir. 1983) nd

(“the two-month period does not begin to run until there has been a final adjudication of

the extradition request; [petitioner's] own habeas corpus petitions have delayed such a

final adjudication.”)

 Accordingly, for the reasons as stated, it is

ORDERED that the motion to release Respondent (doc. # 52) be and is hereby

DENIED.

Done this 17 day of November, 2008. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 56 Filed 11/17/08 Page 3 of 3