In re Extradition of Daniel David Rodriguez- Lastre

1

IN THE MATTER OF EXTRADITION OF DANIEL DAVID RODRIGUEZ- LASTRE

No. 4:23-MJ-2028

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division

January 17, 2024

CERTIFICATION AND ORDER

DENA HANOVICE PALERMO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

By complaint filed October 26, 2023, the United States seeks the extradition of Daniel David Rodriguez-Lastre (“Rodriguez-Lastre” or “Defendant”) to Spain. Compl., ECF No. 1. Rodriguez-Lastre filed a motion to dismiss the extradition complaint. Mot. to Dism., ECF No 22. The United States filed a response. Resp., ECF No. 25. Based on a thorough review of the briefing, oral argument and applicable law, the motion to dismiss is denied, and the Court certifies that Rodriguez-Lastre is extraditable to Spain.

I. BACKGROUND

Attached to the Complaint is: (1) an affidavit from Stacy Hauf, an Attorney Adviser in the Office of the Legal Adviser for the U.S. State Department, attesting that extradition is appropriate in this matter;^[1] (2) a copy of the Nota Verbal from the Spanish Embassy requesting the extradition of Rodriguez-Lastre; (3) a copy of the extradition treaty between the United States and Spain; and (4) the extradition package prepared and presented by Spain, containing Certification of articles of the Penal Code and Rodriguez-Lastre's Sentence, International Arrest Warrant, picture and fingerprint identification. ECF No. 1-1. Rodriguez-Lastre's extradition packet summarizes the relevant facts as follows:

At around midnight on 29 October 2016, a group of people met to make the so-called “botellon” (party with alcohol) in an abandoned factory in the town of Manresa. Among those people were: Daniel David Rodriguez-Lastre, Cuban, of legal age and with no criminal record, among others and [the Victim]^[2]. . . among other minors. [The Victim], a person with a low tolerance for alcohol, drank alcoholic beverages and also smoked a marijuana joint, and as a result of the consumption of toxins, completely lost her awareness of what was happening and of what she was doing, an awareness that she did not recover until hours later, quite late in the morning. It did not go unnoticed that [the Victim] was under 16 years old and was in a state of unconsciousness when Bryan Andres, another convict, took [the Victim], whom he had known for a long time, and went with her to the other cabin, where there was no one. Then, there the man, to satisfy his libidinous desires, inserted his fingers into the girl's vagina. When he finished, Bryan Andres left [the Victim] in the cabin and went to the other, where the others were, and addressing the men, told them that now they could go, and they did so, one after the other, and among them, [Rodriguez-Lastre], who went to the cabin where [the Victim] was and, to satisfy his libidinous desires, inserted his penis into the girl's vagina.

ECF No. 1-1 at 24, 28. A lawyer represented Rodriguez-Lastre at a trial on the merits, at which witness statements, messages between Andres and a witness, and the expert testing of DNA evidence of Rodriguez-Lastre found inside the Victim's trousers were introduced as evidence. Id. at 28. Upon consideration of the evidence, the court “concluded that the facts declared substantiated regarding DANIEL DAVID RODRIGUEZ LASTRE constitute a crime of sexual abuse of a minor under sixteen years of age, regulated in Article 183.1 and 3 of the Criminal Code, in force on the date of the events.” Id. On October 31, 2019, a panel of three senior judges sentenced Rodriguez-Lastre to 10 years imprisonment. Id. at 28. On May 11, 2023, the judgment became final. Id.

On December 17, 2019, Section 22 of the Provincial Court of Barcelona issued a national arrest warrant, and on February 13, 2020, issued a court order agreeing to issue an international arrest warrant for Rodriguez-Lastre. Id. at 28, 72. On October 26, 2023, this Court issued a warrant for Rodriguez-Lastre's arrest. ECF No. 10. On October 31, 2023, U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement turned over custody of Rodriguez-Lastre to the U.S. Marshals Service in Laredo, TX. ECF No. 11. On January 3, 2024, the Court held an extradition hearing. Rodriguez-Lastre appeared with counsel. The Court heard argument from the United States and Rodriguez-Lastre, and then took the matter under advisement.

II. EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS ARE GOVERNED BY STATUTE AND TREATY.

An extradition proceeding is not a criminal case and is neither civil nor criminal in nature. In re Extradition of Shaw, No. 14-CV-81475-WM, 2015 WL 3442022, at *3 (S.D. Fla. 2015). The extradition process is in a class by itself and sets forth its own law. Id.; accord United States v. Extradition of Risner, No. 3:18-MJ-765-BN, 2019 WL 6118377, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 18, 2019) (citing Matter of Extradition of Noeller, No. 17 CR 664, 2018 WL 1027513, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 23, 2018) (citing Skaftouros v. United States, 667 F.3d 144, 155 (2d Cir. 2011))). It is “primarily an executive function, with the court playing a defined and limited role.” Extradition of Risner, 2019 WL 6118377, at *4 (quoting Noeller, 2018 WL 1027513, at *6); see also Noeller v. Wojdylo, 922 F.3d 797, 802 (7th Cir. 2019).

As extradition is a diplomatic process, the applicable extradition treaty and the federal extradition statute govern. Shaw, 2015 WL 3442022, at *3; Risner, 2019 WL 6118377, at *5 (“International extradition proceedings are governed both by statute (18 U.S.C. §§ 3181, 3184, 3186, 3188-91) and by treaty.” (quoting U.S. v. Valentino, Case No. 4:18-mj-00146, 2018 WL 2187645, at *4 (S.D. Tex. May 11, 2018)). Because “the judicial role is narrow, . . . discretionary judgments and matters of political and humanitarian judgment are left to the executive branch.” Id. (quoting Noeller, 922 F.3d at 802); see also Escobedo v. United States, 623 F.2d 1098, 1107 (5th Cir. 1980).

Extradition proceedings usually are based on the authenticated documentary evidence and information the requesting government provided. Shaw, 2015 WL 3442022, at *4. An extradition defendant is allowed to present evidence, limited to explaining or clarifying the proof, but may not contradict the requesting country's evidence. Id. Because of the importance of international obligations and the narrow scope of extradition proceedings, courts have determined that affirmative defenses are not to be considered. Id.

“In applying an extradition treaty, the court is to construe it liberally in favor of the requesting nation.” Risner, 2019 WL 6118377, at *5 (quoting Valentino, 2018 WL 2187645, at *4) (citing Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. 276, 293-94 (1933)). “Although Section 3184 requires the court to decide whether ‘evidence [is] sufficient to sustain the charge,' the scope of an evidentiary hearing is not to determine guilt or innocence.” Id. at 6 (quoting Matter of Extradition of Bonilla, No. 1:13-MJ-62, 2014 WL 934903, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2014)). Rather, the court's limited function is to conduct “a ‘hearing that determines only whether circumstances warrant certification that the respondent is eligible for extradition.'” Id. (quoting Bonilla, 2014 WL 934903, at *3 (emphasis added)).

II. RODRIGUEZ-LASTRE IS EXTRADITABLE TO SPAIN.

A court must make the following findings to certify an extradition: (a) the judicial officer is authorized to conduct the proceeding; (b) the court has jurisdiction over the fugitive; (c) a valid extradition treaty exists; (d) the offense charged is extraditable under the treaty and United States law; and (e) there is a reasonable basis for finding probable cause that the fugitive committed the offense for which the extradition is sought. See 18 U.S.C. § 3184;^[3] Oen Yin-Choy v. Robinson, 858 F.2d 1400, 1402 (9th Cir. 1988). The Defendant contests only whether the offense is extraditable under the treaty. The Court will consider each factor and discuss the arguments Defendant raised against extradition.

A. The Judicial Officer Is Authorized To Conduct The Proceeding.

Under the extradition statute, a court of the United States may authorize a magistrate judge to conduct the extradition hearing and certify the extradition. 18 U.S.C. § 3184. The Southern District of Texas authorizes magistrate judges “to perform all of the duties allowed by law.” S.D. Tex. L.R 72. Thus, this judicial officer is authorized to conduct the extradition proceeding and certify the extradition. There is no dispute about the Court's authority to conduct this proceeding.

B. The Court Has Jurisdiction over Rodriguez-Lastre.

The Court has jurisdiction to extradite “any person found within [the court's] jurisdiction.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3184. Pursuant to an arrest warrant, U.S. Marshals obtained custody of Rodriguez-Lastre within the Court's jurisdiction: Laredo, Texas. ECF No. 11. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction. There is no dispute on this point.

C. A Valid Treaty Exists Between the United States and Spain.

A valid extradition treaty exists between the United States and Spain. ECF No. 1-1 at 6-18; see also Treaty of Extradition Between the United States of America and Spain U.S.-Spain, May 29, 1970, 22 U.S.T. 737; as amended by the Supplementary Treaty Amending the Treaty of May 29, 1970, U.S.-Spain, Jan. 25, 1975, 29 U.S.T. 2283; the Second Supplementary Extradition Treaty Between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain, U.S.-Spain, Feb. 9, 1988, S. TREATY DOC. NO. 102-24 (1992); the Third Supplementary Extradition Treaty Between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain, U.S.-Spain, Mar. 12, 1996, S. TREATY DOC. NO. 105-15 (1997); and the Instrument as contemplated by Article 3(2) of the Agreement on Extradition Between the United States of America and the European Union signed 25 June 2003, as to the application of the Treaty on Extradition...