Opinion ID: 577188
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The government complied with the terms of the extradition treaty

Text: 25 Lehder asserts that he was both tried and sentenced by the United States in violation of the extradition treaty with Colombia. Extradition treaties are governed by the principle of specialty, a rule developed to preserve international relationships as well as the integrity of the extradition process. United States v. Diwan, 864 F.2d 715, 720 (11th Cir.1989); cert. denied, 492 U.S. 921, 109 S.Ct. 3249, 106 L.Ed.2d 595 (1989). Under the principle of specialty,  'the requesting state, which secures the surrender of a person, can prosecute that person only for the offense for which he or she was surrendered by the requested state or else must allow that person an opportunity to leave the prosecuting state to which he or she had been surrendered.'  United States v. Herbage, 850 F.2d 1463, 1465 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1027, 109 S.Ct. 1158, 103 L.Ed.2d 217 (1989) (citation omitted). Because the purpose of the rule of specialty is to ensure that the contracting nations faithfully observe the treaty, the extradited person may raise only those objections to the extradition process that the surrendering country might consider a breach of the extradition treaty. United States v. Diwan, 864 F.2d at 721. 7 26 Lehder first argues that the Colombia Supreme Court's failure to refer specifically to the CCE charge in its review of the extradition request demonstrates that Colombia never agreed to his prosecution for that crime. This contention is without merit. [I]f a treaty fairly admits of two constructions, one restricting rights which may be claimed under it, and the other enlarging it, the more liberal construction is to be preferred. Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. 276, 293-94, 54 S.Ct. 191, 195-96, 78 L.Ed. 315 (1933); see also United States v. Wiebe, 733 F.2d 549, 554 (8th Cir.1984). Although the Colombian Supreme Court enumerated United States Code citations to all the indicted crimes except that of participation in a continuing criminal enterprise, the Court in the same paragraph specifically included the charge of participating in a criminal enterprise continuously with other persons (narcotics traffic). Moreover, in its closing resolves section the Court granted favorable judgment to the extradition in accordance with the request formulated by the Government of the United States of America. This request included an express reference to the charge of continuing criminal enterprise. We find that the Colombia Supreme Court's omission of the Code citation was merely an oversight or legitimate misunderstanding equivalent to the Court's repeated references to sections of the United States Code as Articles. 27 We also find meritless Lehder's assertion that the admission of extrinsic evidence at trial permitted his prosecution on charges unauthorized by the extradition treaty. The rule of specialty is not violated when evidence is properly admitted under the inextricably intertwined doctrine to reflect the scope of the conspiracies, to prove intent, and to aid the jury in determining the nature of the offenses charged. United States v. Alvarez-Moreno, 874 F.2d at 1414. 8 28 Finally, Lehder argues that his sentence violated the fifteen year maximum sentence authorized by the Colombia Supreme Court. The opinion of the Colombia Supreme Court, however, cites a fifteen year maximum penalty only for violations of Articles 841, Sections 2, 952, 960, 963 of Titles 18 and 21 of the United States Code. The opinion does not address the penalty for participation in a criminal enterprise continuously except to note that the maximum penalties were provided on the face of the indictment. The face of the indictment reveals that a sentence of life imprisonment is possible. Furthermore, Article 15(2)(b) of the Treaty states only that [t]he defendant is subject to be sentenced to a period of incarceration which does not exceed that provided for the offense for which the person was extradited. Because Lehder was extradited for trial on the CCE charge and other offenses, his sentence of life plus 135 years--representing the maximum sentence possible on each count of conviction consecutively imposed--did not violate the terms of the treaty. Thus, even assuming Lehder has standing to raise alleged violations of the treaty, see supra note 7, Lehder's arguments lack merit.