Circuit Judge Amalya L. Kearse

 

Read Full-Text Decision

Defendant in the instant case (Barinas I), was convicted in the Eastern District of New York after pleading guilty in 1996 to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute narcotics. In 1997 he was sentenced to time served, and five years’ supervision. He absconded in 1997 after failing to report to probation. Extradited from the Dominican Republic in 2013, defendant was convicted in the District of New Jersey, in U.S. v. Barinas (Barinas II) on cocaine trafficking charges. He appealed EDNY’s revocation of supervision in Barinas I and its sentence of one year and one day in prison. Second Circuit affirmed the EDNY’s 2016 judgment rejecting, for lack of prudential standing, defendant’s claim that because he was extradited to the U.S. to face charges in Barinas II, EDNY’s adjudication of supervised-release-violation charges violated the principle of specialty. Under the applicable extradition treaty only the Dominican Republic could invoke the specialty doctrine. Because supervision was tolled while he was a fugitive, the court deemed meritless defendant’s argument that the crime of conviction in Barinas II could not support a finding of supervised-release-violation because he committed that crime after supervision was scheduled to expire.

Circuit Judge Amalya L. Kearse

 

Read Full-Text Decision

Defendant in the instant case (Barinas I), was convicted in the Eastern District of New York after pleading guilty in 1996 to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute narcotics. In 1997 he was sentenced to time served, and five years’ supervision. He absconded in 1997 after failing to report to probation. Extradited from the Dominican Republic in 2013, defendant was convicted in the District of New Jersey, in U.S. v. Barinas (Barinas II) on cocaine trafficking charges. He appealed EDNY’s revocation of supervision in Barinas I and its sentence of one year and one day in prison. Second Circuit affirmed the EDNY’s 2016 judgment rejecting, for lack of prudential standing, defendant’s claim that because he was extradited to the U.S. to face charges in Barinas II, EDNY’s adjudication of supervised-release-violation charges violated the principle of specialty. Under the applicable extradition treaty only the Dominican Republic could invoke the specialty doctrine. Because supervision was tolled while he was a fugitive, the court deemed meritless defendant’s argument that the crime of conviction in Barinas II could not support a finding of supervised-release-violation because he committed that crime after supervision was scheduled to expire.