George Cornea v. United States Attorney General, 18-14326

Background

Greece indicted George Cornea for a 1994 murder and in 2017 sought his extradition from the U.S. under the U.S.–Greece Extradition Treaty, which bars extradition if the statute of limitations has run.
Under Greek law murder has a 20-year statute of limitations, extendable up to five years if the defendant’s domicile is unknown and the indictment is served as required by Greek Code of Criminal Procedure Article 156. Article 156 allows (1) service on a close family member at the person’s residence or (2) service by publication through the mayor of the person’s last Greek residence if no close relative is found at that residence.
Greek authorities located Cornea’s mother in Romania in 2013 but could not locate Cornea; they served the mayor of Thessaloniki and later issued an order extending the limitations period five years (to July 25, 2019).
Cornea challenged extradition in U.S. proceedings, arguing service was improper because Greek authorities should have served his mother under Article 156(1); his habeas petition relied on a Greek-law expert supporting that view.
The magistrate judge’s R&R and the district court initially granted Cornea’s habeas petition, finding Greece had not shown proper service. The U.S. moved for reconsideration under Rule 59(e), submitting additional Greek government statements (including a July 26, 2018 letter from the Greek Ministry of Justice) saying service on the mayor was lawful because Cornea did not cohabit with his mother in Romania.
The district court granted the Rule 59(e) motion, reversed its prior grant of habeas, and denied Cornea’s petition. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding the district court had committed a manifest error of law by overlooking the Greek Ministry’s authoritative interpretation that service on the mayor satisfied Article 156.

Issues

Issue	Cornea's Argument	United States' Argument	Held
Whether Greek service satisfied Article 156 so as to extend the statute of limitations	Article 156 required service on Cornea’s mother in Romania (Art.156(1)) before resort to service on the mayor; because that was not done, the tolling order is invalid	Article 156 permits service on the mayor when the accused does not cohabit with the located relative; Greek Ministry of Justice confirms mayoral service was proper	Held: Service on the mayor was proper; district court’s initial contrary ruling was a manifest error of law
Whether the district court properly denied Rule 59(e) reconsideration	(Implicit) The evidence relied on by government was not new and did not warrant reversal	Newly presented Greek government statements (including the Ministry’s letter) corrected the court’s legal error about interpretation of Greek procedure; alternatively, reversal appropriate for manifest legal error	Held: Affirmed grant of Rule 59(e) on the ground of manifest error of law (court did not need to decide whether evidence was newly discovered)
Scope of U.S. habeas review of foreign compliance with domestic law in extradition	Cornea argued U.S. courts should scrutinize Greece’s compliance with its own service rules to enforce Treaty art. V	Government argued review is limited; foreign government statements about its law are entitled to respectful consideration and the court’s review is narrow	Held: Review is limited; courts may consider authoritative statements from foreign governments about their law and correct manifest legal errors
Standard of review for district court’s reconsideration decision	N/A (appellant challenges district court’s legal ruling)	District court decisions on Rule 59(e) discretion reviewed for abuse of discretion; questions of foreign law reviewed de novo	Held: No abuse of discretion; district court’s correction of manifest legal error affirmed; foreign-law determination reviewed de novo and supported by Greek Ministry’s statement

Key Cases Cited

Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Glenn Estess & Assoc., Inc., 763 F.2d 1237 (11th Cir. 1985) (district court’s decision to alter or amend judgment reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2007) (Rule 59(e) reconsideration may be granted for newly discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact)
Skaftouros v. United States, 667 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2011) (habeas review of extradition is limited to ensuring compliance with treaty and applicable foreign law to the necessary extent)
Yapp v. Reno, 26 F.3d 1562 (11th Cir. 1994) (extradition is an executive function; habeas review is limited regarding magistrate’s certification)
United States v. Gill, 864 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2017) (appellate courts may affirm on any ground supported by the record)
Basic v. Steck, 819 F.3d 897 (6th Cir. 2016) (statements from foreign governments can be relied upon as evidence of that nation’s law)