Prasoprat v. Benov’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 4 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “deems the evidence sufficient to sustain the charge under the provisions of the proper treaty or convention, ... he shall certify the same, together with a copy of all the testimony taken before him, to the. Secretary of State, that a warrant may issue upon the requisition of the proper authorities of such foreign government, for .the surrender of such person, according to the stipulations of the treaty or convention; and he shall issue his warrant for the commitment of the person so charged to the proper jail, there to remain until such surrender shall be made.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re the Extradition of Mathison · 142 F. Supp. 3d 1182 - In re Extradition of Sarellano

2. “In 1998, a confidential informant reported to an agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) that [petitioner Suwit] Prasoprat was involved in heroin trafficking between Bangkok, Thailand, and Los Angeles. The DEA monitored [petitioner] for several years and, in 2001, the United States filed a complaint in the United States District Court on behalf of the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand, seeking [petitioner’s] extradition to Thailand pursuant to the extradition treaty between the United States and Thailand. The complaint alleged that [petitioner] and another individual were wanted in Thailand for drug offenses that are covered by the extradition treaty. [Petitioner] was ordered detained by a magistrate judge. Following an extradition hearing, the magistrate judge determined that the government had established probable cause to sustain the narcotics charges. The court therefore entered an extradition certification, ordering that [petitioner] was extraditable and certifying the matter to the United States Secretary of State to issue a warrant to extradite [petitioner].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 622 F. Supp. 2d 980 - Prasoprat v. Benov

3. “1. This court possesses subject matter jurisdiction to conduct extradition proceedings pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3184 . 2. This court possesses personal jurisdiction over Jose Luis Munoz Santos. 3. A valid Extradition Treaty exists between the United States and Mexico. 4. The Extradition Treaty between the United States and Mexico is, and at all relevant times has been, in full force and effect. 5. Jose Luis Munoz Santos has been charged by Mexico with a criminal offense within its jurisdiction. 6. The offense with which Jose Luis Munoz Santos has been charged is an extraditable offense under the Extradition Treaty between the United States and Mexico. 7. The person before the court is the same person who is sought for prosecution in the request for extradition. 8. The request for extradition contains competent evidence establishing probable cause to believe that Jose Luis Munoz Santos committed the charged offense of kidnapping.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 795 F. Supp. 2d 966 - In Re the Extradition of Santos