United States v. Barinas
865 F.3d 99
2d Cir.2017Background
- Eduardo Barinas was convicted in EDNY in 1997 (Barinas I) for a narcotics conspiracy and sentenced to time served plus five years supervised release with standard conditions (reporting, no leaving district, no new crimes).
- Barinas failed to report in mid-1997, a warrant issued in August 1997, and he left the U.S. for the Dominican Republic while aware of the warrant; he remained abroad until extradited in 2013.
- In 2008 Barinas was indicted in the District of New Jersey (Barinas II) for a 2007 cocaine-import conspiracy; the U.S. requested extradition in 2009 under the 1909 U.S.–Dominican Republic Extradition Treaty; the extradition request did not mention the 1997 supervised-release violation.
- Barinas was extradited in 2013, pleaded guilty in DNJ in 2015, and was sentenced in 2016. Meanwhile EDNY filed a supplemental supervised-release violation report in 2016 adding charges that he absconded and committed the DNJ offense while on supervised release.
- The EDNY district court denied Barinas’s motion to dismiss (rejecting his rule-of-specialty standing argument and ruling the supervised-release term was tolled while he was a fugitive), found the violations, revoked supervised release, and imposed a consecutive one-year-and-one-day sentence; the Second Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule of specialty / extradition limits | U.S. (plaintiff) argued treaty limits can be raised only by the surrendering state | Barinas argued extradition limited U.S. to prosecute only listed offenses; supervised-release proceedings violate specialty | Barinas lacks prudential standing; only the Dominican Republic may invoke specialty absent treaty language granting individual enforcement |
| Use of post-expiration conduct (Barinas II offense) as supervised-release violation | U.S. argued supervised-release period tolled while Barinas was a fugitive, so the DNJ crime was within the supervisory period | Barinas argued his supervised-release term expired in 2002 and conduct in 2007 cannot be a violation | Court held tolling applies for fugitivity; adjudication of the violation under §3583(i) was proper |
| Scope of §3583(i) for post-expiration adjudication | U.S. relied on §3583(i) to adjudicate matters arising before expiration when warrant issued earlier | Barinas claimed §3583(i) does not reach crimes after the scheduled end of supervision | Court relied on tolling doctrine and §3583(i) to permit post-expiration adjudication of conduct linked to pre-expiration absconding |
| Whether First Circuit rule against tolling controls | Barinas urged adopting Hernández-Ferrer (no tolling for fugitivity) | U.S. urged following circuits that allow tolling | Court declined Hernández; followed majority view allowing tolling and noted Hernández still permits considering fugitive conduct at sentencing if warrant issued earlier |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407 (establishes principle of specialty in extradition)
- United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (treaty and extradition jurisprudence on scope of prosecution)
- United States v. Suarez, 791 F.3d 363 (specialty requires adherence to surrendering state's limitations)
- United States v. Baez, 349 F.3d 90 (interpretation of extradition agreements and specialty)
- United States v. Garavito-Garcia, 827 F.3d 242 (defendant lacks standing to invoke specialty absent state protest)
- United States v. Buchanan, 638 F.3d 448 (tolling supervised-release during fugitivity; majority view)
- United States v. Hernández-Ferrer, 599 F.3d 63 (First Circuit view rejecting tolling for fugitivity)
- Corall v. Anderson, 263 U.S. 193 (lapse of time does not constitute service of sentence)
- Caballery v. United States Parole Commission, 673 F.2d 43 (parole period tolled during abscondence; lapse-of-time principle)