Opinion ID: 199265
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lack of jurisdiction over person.

Text: 9 Torres-Gonzalez argues that his conviction should be vacated because the United States seized him in Venezuela and did not properly extradite him, although Venezuela has had a bilateral extradition treaty with the United States since 1922. 1 As a result of his removal from Venezuela by means other than extradition, he says, the district court did not properly have jurisdiction over him when he pled guilty. 2 He says that this claim is not waived because at the time he pled guilty, he was not aware he had not been extradited and so he could not be expected to have raised the issue then. 10 The district court, relying on United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992), correctly concluded that the Supreme Court resolved this issue against Torres-Gonzalez. In Alvarez-Machain, the Court found that the extradition treaty between Mexico and the United States neither expressly nor impliedly prohibited the forcible abduction and removal of the defendant from Mexico to the United States; therefore, the Court held, such means of apprehension did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction over the defendant. See id. at 663-69. Defendant here provides no reason to distinguish his case. Indeed, in this case the Venezuelan authorities cooperated in his apprehension and voluntarily surrendered him to the United States. Under the logic of Alvarez-Machain, the district court had jurisdiction over Torres-Gonzalez. Because there is no jurisdictional defect, his unconditional guilty plea is a waiver of all claims based on the lack of extradition. United States v. Cordero, 42 F.3d 697, 698-99 (1st Cir. 1994). 11