United States v. Ivo Knotek, 925 F.3d 1118

Ivo Knotek, a naturalized U.S. citizen formerly from Czechoslovakia, was convicted in Prague (2001) of two counts of attempted extortion and sentenced to 4.5 years; Czech courts affirmed the conviction and an arrest warrant issued after unpaid fines.
The U.S. obtained a magistrate’s certification for provisional arrest (2013) and Knotek filed a habeas petition challenging extradition; the district court denied relief and he appealed.
The U.S.–Czech extradition treaty (originally 1925, amended in 2006) states parties “shall” extradite persons but contains an Article VIII nationality clause: neither party “shall be bound to deliver up its own citizens.”
18 U.S.C. § 3196 (1990) authorizes the Secretary of State to surrender U.S. citizens when a treaty does not obligate extradition; Congress enacted § 3196 to address the vacancy identified in Valentine v. United States.
The Ninth Circuit considered (1) whether § 3196 permissibly authorizes extradition of U.S. citizens despite Article VIII, and (2) whether Knotek’s Czech attempted-extortion conviction satisfies the treaty’s dual‑criminality requirement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 3196 is a permissible basis to extradite a U.S. citizen despite the Treaty’s nationality clause	Knotek: § 3196 impermissibly amends the Treaty and violates Article II; Treaty’s Article VIII bars extradition of nationals	Government: § 3196 fills a statutory gap; Treaty only removes an obligation to extradite, it does not prohibit extradition; Congress may legislate on extradition	Held: § 3196 is constitutional and authorizes discretionary extradition of U.S. citizens where treaty does not expressly prohibit it
Whether Knotek’s Czech conviction meets dual criminality (i.e., is extraditable)	Knotek: Czech offense broader and could be mere hard bargaining; not analogous to U.S. attempted extortion	Government: Czech attempted extortion and facts (threats to obtain payments) are punishable under U.S. law (18 U.S.C. § 1951) as attempted extortion; victim’s reasonableness not required for attempt	Held: Czech attempted extortion is within the Treaty, would be punishable as attempted extortion in U.S., and is substantially analogous — dual criminality satisfied

Valentine v. United States ex rel. Neidecker, 299 U.S. 5 (1936) (no statutory authority then existed to extradite U.S. citizens where treaty lacked authorization)
Grin v. Shine, 187 U.S. 181 (1902) (Congress may provide for extradition with or without treaty)
Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U.S. 447 (1913) (treaties do not automatically exempt U.S. citizens from extradition absent treaty language)
Santos v. Thomas, 830 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2016) (standards and limited scope of judicial review in extradition habeas proceedings)
Bašić v. Steck, 819 F.3d 897 (6th Cir. 2016) (§ 3196 provides discretion to extradite U.S. citizens where treaty does not oblige surrender)
Hilario v. United States, 854 F. Supp. 165 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) (statute fills treaty gap; treating nationality clause as not prohibiting domestic law permitting extradition)
Prasoprat v. Benov, 421 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2005) (certification decisions reviewed collaterally via habeas)
Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 776 (9th Cir. 1986) (framework for analyzing extraditable offenses and dual criminality)
Wright v. Henkel, 190 U.S. 40 (1903) (substantial-analogy standard for dual criminality)
United States v. Enmons, 410 U.S. 396 (1973) (limits on extortion where claim of right exists)
United States v. Villalobos, 748 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014) (economic-threats may be wrongful and extortionate when used to obtain personal payoffs)