U.S. v. Kaufman, s. 87-1462
| Citation | 874 F.2d 242 |
| Decision Date | 17 May 1989 |
| Docket Number | 87-1621,Nos. 87-1462,s. 87-1462 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Warren KAUFMAN, a/k/a John Rayford, Leonard Joseph Kissell, James Gregory Smith, Perry Franks & Paddy D. Franks, Defendants-Appellants. Paddy Daniel FRANKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jack HARWELL, Sheriff, McLennan County, Texas, et al., Respondents-Appellees. Perry FRANKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jack HARWELL, Sheriff of McLennan County, Texas, et al., Respondents-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Ronald G. Guyer, San Antonio, Tex. (court-appointed), for Steve W. kaufman.
Martha Dickey, Austin, Tex. (court-appointed), for James Gregory Smith.
Michael E. Tigar, Austin, Tex. (court-appointed), for Perry Franks & Paddy D. Franks.
Charles O. Grigson, Austin, Tex. (court-appointed), for Kissell.
James H. DeAtley, Asst. U.S. Atty., Austin, Tex., LeRoy Morgan Jahn, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., Louis M. Fischer, Appellate Sect., Crim. Div., Washington, D.C., Helen M. Eversberg, U.S. Atty., Austin, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Dick Thornburgh, U.S. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for other interested party.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
Opinions Oct. 17, 1988 & March 1, 1989, 858 F.2d 994 (5th Cir.1988);
Before KING, JOHNSON and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
The petition for rehearing is DENIED. In response to the defendant's petition for rehearing, our opinion reported at 858 F.2d 994 (5th Cir.1988), has been submitted to the State Department for its review. The State Department has indicated its approval of the denial to the Franks of the benefits of the rule of specialty contained in the treaty between the United States and Mexico since "only an offended nation can complain about the purported violation of an extradition treaty," and Mexico has made no protest whatever about the prosecution of the Franks brothers in Texas.
No member of this panel nor judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Fed.R.App.P. and Local Rule 35), the Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Day
...the view that “only an offended nation can complain about the purported violation of an extradition treaty.” United States v. Kaufman, 874 F.2d 242, 243 (5th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (denying petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc); see also, e.g., Shapiro v. Ferrandina, ......
-
Antwi v. U.S.
...to the principle of specialty are split, as are the courts in this District that have addressed it. Compare United States v. Kaufman, 874 F.2d 242, 243 (5th Cir.1989) (per curiam), Demjanjuk v. Petrovsky, 776 F.2d 571, 583-84 (6th Cir.1985), cert, denied, 475 U.S. 1016, 106 S.Ct. 1198, 89 L......
-
U.S. v. Logan
... ... 16 Bound by this court's holding ... Page 1380 ... in United States v. Kaufman, we disagree. See 858 F.2d 994, 1005 (5th Cir.1988), reh'g denied, 874 F.2d 242 (1989). In ... 's backyard and the resulting state conviction for possession of that marijuana; the case before us involves participation in a drug-running conspiracy that distributed marijuana and cocaine: we ... ...
-
State v. Graham
...ran between sovereign nations, not individuals, and because expediting nation consented to extradition); United States v. Kaufman, 874 F.2d 242, 243 (5th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (stating that only the offended nation that is a party to a treaty may complain of a breach of the treaty); Demjan......