United States v. Knotek, No. 17-55572 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for habeas corpus relief where petitioner challenged an order certifying him as extraditable to the Czech Republic in order for him to serve a sentence for a Czech conviction for attempted extortion.
The panel agreed with the Sixth Circuit and nearly every district court that has considered the applicability of 18 U.S.C. 3196 that, in the absence of a treaty authorization or prohibition, the statute confers discretion on the U.S. Department of State to seek extradition of U.S. citizens. The panel also agreed with the district court that petitioner's Czech conviction for attempted extortion qualifies as an extraditable offense and thus the district court properly denied habeas relief.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus / Extradition The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition in which Ivo Knotek, a U.S. citizen, challenged an order certifying him as extraditable to the Czech Republic so that he can serve a sentence for a Czech conviction for attempted extortion. Knotek contended that the government lacks authority to extradite him to the Czech Republic because the extradition treaty between the United States and the Czech Republic (“Treaty”) does not provide for the extradition of U.S. citizens, and 18 U.S.C. § 3196 cannot prevail over the Treaty. The panel held that section 3196—which provides that if the applicable treaty or convention does not obligate the United States to extradite its citizens to a foreign country, the Secretary of State may extradite a United States citizen whose extradition has been requested by a foreign country if the other requirements of that treaty or convention are met— is a permissible act of Congress because it does not amend or conflict with the Treaty. Knotek argued in the alternative that because the United States and Czech Republic in 2006 made no changes to the Treaty provision regarding extradition of citizens—despite amending analogous clauses in other treaties—this reflects the two countries’ intent to prohibit the extradition of their own citizens, and under the “last-in-time” canon, the 2006
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.