Hernando Rodriguez v. United States, 1:11-cv-02957

Rodriguez, a federal defendant, was convicted on two counts of murder while engaged in federal narcotics felonies.
The superseding indictment charged three counts: murder in the course of a drug conspiracy, murder during a firearm offense in furtherance of narcotics conspiracies, and conspiracy to violate federal narcotics laws.
Colombian authorities extradited Rodriguez under a decree with conditions limiting extraditable conduct and time-frame; dual incrimination constrained certain charges.
Petitioner was tried in 2008, primarily Spanish-speaking with an interpreter; the Government rested and defense presented no case; he was convicted on Counts 1 and 2 and sentenced to concurrent 50-year terms.
Rodriguez pressed 2255 claims alleging ineffective assistance of counsel on multiple grounds, including trial instructions, specialty limits, presumption of innocence, limitations, interpreter availability, and admission of pre-1997 evidence.
The court denied most claims but ordered an evidentiary hearing to address whether Rodriguez was adequately advised about a plea offer presented the day before trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jury instructions adequacy for §848(e)(1)(A)	Rodriguez argues failure to instruct on continuing criminal enterprise	Government contends the prong charged relates to §841(b)(1)(A); no C.C.E. instruction required	Meritless; instruction aligned with charged prong; no error under Strickland.
Specialty and Count Two extradition	Counsel failed to challenge specialty limits given decree	Decree allowed homicide prosecution; no violation of specialty	Meritless; prosecution consistent with decree and dual incrimination concerns.
Presumption of innocence instruction	Instruction deviated from Birbal formula	Court’s instruction functionally identical to Birbal standard	Instruction proper; no error.
Statute of limitations for underlying conspiracy	Underlying conspiracy time-barred; invalidates §848(e)(1)(A)	§848(e)(1)(A) is capital offense not subject to five-year limit	Court adopts interpretation allowing prosecution despite time-barred underlying conspiracy.
Interpreter availability and plea-offer communications	Lack of interpreter for plea discussions violated Sixth Amendment	CIA requires interpreters at judicial proceedings; plea discussions excluded	Remanded for evidentiary hearing to resolve plea-offer understanding and interpreter issue.

United States v. Aguilar, 585 F.3d 652 (2d Cir. 2009) (elements of §848(e)(1)(A) and related proximity to conspiracy)
United States v. Birbal, 62 F.3d 456 (2d Cir. 1995) (preservation of presumption-of-innocence instruction)
United States v. Kirsh, 54 F.3d 1062 (2d Cir. 1995) (Strickland standard and reasonable investigation of claims)
Mayo v. Henderson, 13 F.3d 528 (2d Cir. 1994) (counsel not obliged to raise every nonfrivolous argument)
Purdy v. United States, 208 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2000) (plea communication duties under counsel)
Boria v. Keane, 99 F.3d 492 (2d Cir. 1996) (Sixth Amendment plea-offer conveyance and reasonable probability standard)
Jones v. United States, 101 F.3d 1263 (8th Cir. 1996) (interpretation of ‘punishable’ in §848(e)(1)(A) and related limits)
United States v. Baez, 349 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2003) (specialty limits on extradition prosecutions)
United States v. Flores, 538 F.2d 939 (2d Cir. 1976) (specialty does not regulate admissibility of pre-1997 evidence)