FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 24, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 66 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :9 0- cr-0 01 52 -FAM- 1
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
vers us NICHOLAS MAURIC IO RIVAS-GOM EZ, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J an ua ry 24 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d C ARNES, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Nich ol as Mau ric io Riv as -Go m ez, p ro ceed in g p ro se, app eal s t he di st ric t

co ur t’s o rd er d en y in g, fo r la ckof ju ris di ct io n, h is m ot io n t o d is m is s a p os si bl e in di ct m en t, i nf

orm at io n, co m

pl ai nt , or a rres t warran t i ss ue d a ga in sthi m . Rev ers ib le erro r ha s b eensh own ; we af firm in pa rt a ndva cat e an d re m an d i n p art . Ri va s- Gom ez was de po rte d t o C ol om bi a aft er co m

pl et in g t he im

pr is on m en t po rti on of h is sen te nc e fo r po ss es si on wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te co cai ne . Whi le
se rv in g h is term

of s up erv is edrel eas e, ho wev er, Ri va s- Gom ez was ch arg edwit h a
se co nddru g o ffen se an d was ex tra di te d b ackto th e Uni te d S ta te s. As a res ul t, t he di st ric t co urt l at er i ss ue d an a rres t warran t ch arg in g R iv as -Go m ez wi th vi ol at in g th e te rm s o f hi s s up erv is edrel eas e. Ri va s- Gom ez fi le d am ot io n a sk in g t he di st ric t co ur t t o d is m is s “ a p os si bl e in di ct m en t, i nf

orm at io n, co m

pl ai nt , or . . . arres t warran t ag ai ns t h im .” In pa rti cu la r, he arg ue d t ha t t he ex tra di ti on tre aty be twee n t he Uni te d S ta te s an d Co lo m bi a p rev en te d the go ve rn m en t fr om pu ni sh in g h im

forvi ol at in g t he term s o f hi s s up erv is edrel eas e. The d is tri ctco ur t d en ie d the m ot io n fo r la ckof 1 juri sd ic ti on .

Under the terms of the Ex tradition Treaty with Colombia, a pe rson extradited from Colombia 1 to the Unit ed S tates “shall not be detained, t ri ed or punished
. . . for an offe nse ot her than that for which extradition has been g rante d.” Ex tradition Trea ty Be tween the United States of Americ a and the Republic of Colombia, U.S.-Colom., art. 15, ¶ 1, Sept. 14, 1979, S. Treaty Doc. No. 97- 8. 2W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco ur t’s d et erm in at io n abo utit s ju ris di ct io n d e n ov o.

Uni te d S ta te s v . Oli ve r, 14 8 F .3d12 74 , 12 75 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). Arti cl e III o f th e 2 Uni te d S ta te s C on st itut io n l im it s t he jud ic ia l p owe r of th e fed eral co ur ts to “ cas es ”
an d “ co nt ro ve rs ie s.” Fl as t v . Coh en , 88 S.Ct . 19 42 , 19 49 (19 68 ). It i s al so well
es tabl is he d t ha t fe de ral co urts lac k juris di ct io n t o i ss ue advi so ry op in io ns . Id. at 19 50 -5 1. To t he ex te ntth atRiv as -Go m ez’s m ot io n s ou gh t t he di sm is sa l o f a “po ss ib le in di ct m en t, i nf

orm at io n, [o r] com

pl ai nt ” -- n on e o f whi ch ex is te d -- itam ou nt edto a req ue stforth e d is tri ctco urt t o i ss ue anadvi so ry op in io n. Thus , th e d is tri ctco urt la ck edjuri sd ic ti on to co ns id er t ha t p or ti on of R iv as -Go m ez’s m ot io n. Se e id
. Bu t Ri va s- Gom ez’s m ot io n a ls o a sk edth e d is tri ctco ur t t o d is m is s t he arre st
warra ntth atitha d i ss ue d a ga in sthi m . Becau se th e d is tri ctco urt h adth e in he ren t
au th or it y to de te rm in e th e v al id it y of i ts own ord er, t he co ur t erredin de nyin g t hi s po rti on of R iv as -Go m ez’s m ot io n fo r la ckof ju ris di ct io n. Se e Equ it y Lifes tyle Pro ps ., Inc . v. Fl a. Mo win g & Land sc ap e Serv., In c., 55 6 F .3d12 32 , 12 40 (11 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at“ [a] di st ric t co ur t h as in he ren t au th or it y to m an ag e it s

In addition, we liberally construe pro se pleading s. See Tanne nbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 2 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). 3own do ck et ”). Thu s, we v acat e an d re m an d fo r ad di ti on al pro ceed in gs .

AFFIR MED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.

4