From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Kaufman

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
May 17, 1989
874 F.2d 242 (5th Cir. 1989)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that "only an offended nation can complain about the purported violation of an extradition treaty"

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Feng
See 5 Summaries

Opinion

Nos. 87-1462, 87-1621.

May 17, 1989.

Ronald G. Guyer, San Antonio, Tex. (court-appointed), for Steve W. Kaufman.

Martha Dickey, Austin, Tex. (court-appointed), for James Gregory Smith.

Michael E. Tigar, Austin, Tex. (court-appointed), for Perry Franks Paddy D. Franks.

Charles O. Grigson, Austin, Tex. (court-appointed), for Kissell.

James H. DeAtley, Asst. U.S. Atty., Austin, Tex., LeRoy Morgan Jahn, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., Louis M. Fischer, Appellate Sect., Crim. Div., Washington, D.C., Helen M. Eversberg, U.S. Atty., Austin, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.

Dick Thornburgh, U.S. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for other interested party.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Before KING, JOHNSON and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

[1] ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC [2] Opinions Oct. 17, 1988 March 1, 1989, 858 F.2d 994 (5th Cir. 1988); [3] 869 F.2d 1485 (5th Cir. 1989)

PER CURIAM:

The petition for rehearing is DENIED. In response to the defendant's petition for rehearing, our opinion reported at 858 F.2d 994 (5th Cir. 1988), has been submitted to the State Department for its review. The State Department has indicated its approval of the denial to the Franks of the benefits of the rule of specialty contained in the treaty between the United States and Mexico since "only an offended nation can complain about the purported violation of an extradition treaty," and Mexico has made no protest whatever about the prosecution of the Franks brothers in Texas.

No member of this panel nor judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Fed.R.App.P. and Local Rule 35), the Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.

Summaries of

U.S. v. Kaufman

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
May 17, 1989
874 F.2d 242 (5th Cir. 1989)

holding that "only an offended nation can complain about the purported violation of an extradition treaty"

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Feng

holding that "only an offended nation can complain about the purported violation of an extradition treaty"

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Nosov

denying petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc

Summary of this case from United States v. Day

In United States v. Kaufman, 874 F.2d 242, 243 (5th Cir. 1989), we suggested that a criminal defendant has no standing to argue the specialty doctrine when the asylum state has failed to raise an objection to the proceeding.

Summary of this case from United States v. Miro

stating that only the offended nation that is a party to a treaty may complain of a breach of the treaty

Summary of this case from State v. Graham
Case details for

U.S. v. Kaufman

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. STEVEN WARREN KAUFMAN…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: May 17, 1989

Citations

874 F.2d 242 (5th Cir. 1989)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Puentes

We limit, however, the defendant's challenges under the principle of specialty to only those objections that…

U.S. v. Nosov

Nosov is correct that the circuit courts are split as to whether a defendant, as opposed to the country from…

12 Citing Cases