## Facts

- A federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida indicted Ramon Puentes on four counts in a multi-count indictment, including a cocaine importation conspiracy charge under 21 U.S.C. § 952(a) (Count IV) alleged to run from 1982 to November 29, 1988.
- Puentes was arrested in Uruguay, and the United States requested extradition supported by affidavits describing the charges and identifying Puentes.
- Uruguay granted extradition only for Count IV.
- After Puentes was returned to the United States, the government obtained a superseding indictment that, among other changes, extended the alleged conspiracy period in Count IV to December 13, 1991.
- At trial, the government presented evidence linking Puentes to large cocaine importation activity, including surveillance and an undercover operation tied to his Miami car dealership (Autoworld) in which a motor home was loaded with 664 kilograms of cocaine.
- A jury convicted Puentes on Count IV of the superseding indictment, and the district court imposed a 365-month sentence.
- Puentes appealed, arguing that trying him under the expanded Count IV violated the extradition specialty doctrine and that additional trial errors (including evidentiary rulings, a Batson challenge, and denial of a new trial based on newly discovered evidence) required reversal.

## Issues

1. Whether an extradited defendant has standing to assert a violation of the extradition specialty doctrine, and the extent of any such standing.
2. Whether a superseding indictment that extends the charged conspiracy period after extradition violates the specialty doctrine where extradition was granted only for the original conspiracy count.
3. Whether alleged evidentiary errors, jury-selection error under Batson, or denial of post-trial motions warranted reversal or a new trial.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held that an extradited defendant has standing to raise specialty objections, but only to the extent the rendering state could have raised them.
- The court held that extending the conspiracy’s timeframe in the superseding indictment did not materially alter the extradited offense and therefore did not violate specialty.
- The court rejected challenges to evidentiary rulings, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion and that any arguable error was harmless given the strength of the evidence.
- The court affirmed the denial of the Batson claim for failure to establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination.
- The court affirmed denial of a new trial, finding no abuse of discretion and no showing that the proffered evidence would likely produce an acquittal.

## Legal Principles

- The extradition specialty doctrine primarily protects the rendering state’s treaty interests, but a defendant may assert specialty in U.S. court derivatively.
- Defendant standing to invoke specialty is limited to objections the rendering state itself could have asserted under the applicable extradition arrangement.
- A post-extradition superseding indictment does not violate specialty when it does not materially or substantially change the offense for which extradition was granted.
- For conspiracy charges, changes to allegations such as dates may be permissible where the statutory offense and essential nature of the charged agreement remain the same.
- Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and non-constitutional errors do not justify reversal absent prejudice under harmless-error review.
- A Batson claim fails absent a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination; denial of a new trial based on newly discovered evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Puentes’s prosecution on a superseding conspiracy count after extradition, holding that specialty objections may be raised only within the rendering state’s treaty-based limits and that extending the alleged conspiracy dates did not materially change the extradited offense; the court also found no reversible trial or post-trial error.


United States v. Puentes, 50 F.3d 1567 (11th Cir. 1995)