Zhenli Gon v. Gerald Holt
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23570
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- Zhenli Ye Gon, a Mexican national, was arrested in the U.S. on a U.S. drug conspiracy charge; the U.S. later dismissed that charge with prejudice to permit Mexico’s extradition request.
- Mexico sought Ye Gon’s extradition (2008) for multiple Mexican offenses: organized crime, firearms offenses, money laundering, diversion of essential chemicals, and drug offenses.
- A D.C. magistrate held an extradition hearing, certified Ye Gon as extraditable, and the State Department paused action while Ye Gon filed habeas relief.
- Ye Gon filed a § 2241 habeas petition in the Western District of Virginia raising jurisdictional, Non Bis In Idem, dual-criminality, and specialty-rule claims; the district court denied relief.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, addressing: (1) whether the D.C. magistrate had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3184; (2) whether Article 6 (Non Bis In Idem) barred extradition after dismissal of the U.S. charge; (3) whether Article 2 (dual criminality) was satisfied; and (4) whether Article 17 (specialty) limited Mexico’s subsequent charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ye Gon) | Defendant's Argument (U.S.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Magistrate jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3184 | Ye Gon was arrested in Maryland and transported to D.C.; therefore D.C. magistrate lacked authority because he was not "found within" D.C. | Jurisdiction is determined where the extradition charge is filed/where the fugitive is "found" when charged; involuntary transfer does not defeat jurisdiction. | D.C. magistrate had jurisdiction; "found within" is satisfied by the fugitive's presence when the extradition complaint is brought; Ker-Frisbie doctrine permits involuntary presence. |
| Treaty Non Bis In Idem (Article 6) | Dismissal with prejudice of the U.S. conspiracy charge constitutes prosecution/acquittal and thus bars Mexico from prosecuting related Mexican offenses arising from same acts. | Non Bis In Idem compares statutory offenses, not underlying conduct; use Blockburger elements test—U.S. conspiracy and Mexican offenses are different. | Adopted Blockburger elements test; Article 6 does not bar extradition because the offenses are not the same under the elements test. |
| Dual criminality (Article 2) | Mexican charging documents do not allege conduct that is criminal under U.S. law (e.g., precursors, sulfuric acid, money laundering). | Dual criminality examines whether the conduct punished by requesting state is also criminal in the requested state; courts may consider evidence beyond the foreign charging papers. | Dual criminality satisfied as to drug offenses, diversion of chemicals, money laundering, organized crime, and firearm counts when considering the alleged conduct and evidence. |
| Rule of specialty (Article 17) | Mexico later filed additional charges (tax evasion, smuggling); specialty forbids trying Ye Gon for offenses not the subject of U.S. extradition certification. | Specialty is a privilege of the asylum (requested) state; moreover, State Department controls surrender and may waive specialty; court lacks current basis to adjudicate. | Denied on standing/ ripeness grounds: Ye Gon lacks a Treaty-based right to assert specialty and, even if he had standing, claim is unripe because final surrender/waiver are executive decisions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pettit v. Walshe, 194 U.S. 205 (establishes that extradition hearing should occur where accused was "found" when extradition proceedings are brought)
- Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 (Ker-Frisbie doctrine: forcible abduction or involuntary presence does not defeat court jurisdiction)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (elements test for determining whether two offenses are the same)
- Collins v. Loisel, 259 U.S. 309 (dual criminality satisfied if the act charged is criminal in both jurisdictions)
- United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407 (early articulation of the rule of specialty principle)
- United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (rejection of a broad "same conduct" double jeopardy test, reinforcing elements approach)
- Mironescu v. Costner, 480 F.3d 664 (describes State Department/Justice Department roles in extradition process)