Rodriguez Caro v. Weaver, No. 18-1469 (10th Cir. 2019)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ GABRIEL RODRIGUEZ CARO, FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit June 11, 2019 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Petitioner - Appellant, v. DAVID WEAVER, United States Marshal for the District of Colorado, No. 18-1469 (D.C. No. 1:17-CV-02758-RBJ) (D. Colo.) Respondent - Appellee. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________ Before HOLMES, BACHARACH, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Gabriel Rodriguez Caro appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 application challenging the magistrate judge’s certification of his extradition to Mexico. Mr. Rodriguez’s motion to withdraw his oral argument * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. request and expedite the appeal is granted. For reasons explained separately, the district court’s decision is affirmed.1 Entered for the Court Jerome A. Holmes Circuit Judge 1 Certain filings in this appeal have been sealed by previous orders of this court. We direct the clerk to enter this Order and Judgment on the public docket. Consistent with the court’s sealing orders, this Order and Judgment and a separate sealed version of this Order and Judgment shall be filed simultaneously. The two Orders and Judgments shall constitute one judgment for purposes of the termination of this appeal. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.