Case: 18-14328 Date Filed: 02/22/2019 Page: 1 of 5

No. 18-14328

In the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit

Andres Arias Leiva,

Appellant,

v.

Robert Wilson, Warden,

Appellee.

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

Appellant Andres Arias Leiva’s Reply in Support of

Second Motion for Stay of Extradition Pending Appeal

David Oscar Markus Ricardo J. Bascuas

Florida Bar No. 119318 Florida Bar No. 093157
Lauren Doyle 1311 Miller Drive
Florida Bar No. 117687 Coral Gables, Florida 33146
Markus/Moss PLLC 305-284-2672
40 NW Third Street, Penthouse One
Miami, Florida 33128
305-379-6667
Counsel for Appellant
 Case: 18-14328 Date Filed: 02/22/2019 Page: 2 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS

AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Appellant Andres Arias Leiva files this Certificate of Interested Persons and

Corporate Disclosure Statement, listing in alphabetical order the parties and entities

interested in this appeal, as required by Eleventh Circuit Rule 26.1.

Arias Leiva, Andres

Bascuas, Ricardo J.

Doyle, Lauren

Emery, Robert

Fajardo Orshan, Ariana

Greenberg, Benjamin

Haciski, Rebecca

King, The Hon. James L.

Markus, David Oscar

O’Sullivan, The Hon. John J.

Santos, Juan Manuel

Smachetti, Emily

Smith, Christopher

C-1 of 1
 Case: 18-14328 Date Filed: 02/22/2019 Page: 3 of 5

Appellant Andres Arias Leiva’s Reply in Support of

Second Motion for Stay of Extradition Pending Appeal

In its Response to the Second Motion for Stay of Extradition Pending Appeal,

the government takes the position that Colombia’s unsigned diplomatic note

established that the Treaty is in force. See Response to Second Stay Mot. at 7. This

is incorrect.

The newly discovered State Department document corroborates the following

points:

• Colombia’s diplomatic note was carefully worded to avoid saying

that there is a treaty in effect.

The diplomatic note is perfectly consistent with the newly discovered State

Department document. It stated that “[t]he treaty cannot be applied” in Colombia

because Colombia never ratified it. Consequently, “extradition requests that the

United States of America presents to Colombia, cannot be processed, neither granted

or denied, in accordance to the Treaty.” EC-DE54-1:8–9. Instead, Colombia processes

all U.S. extradition requests under its domestic law, which, unlike U.S. law, permits

extradition without any treaty. Id. The note did not state that Colombia requested

Minister Arias’ extradition pursuant to the Treaty. It stated merely that Colombia

requested his extradition “with the understanding that the United States of America

would process it based on the Treaty.” EC54-1:9.

1
 Case: 18-14328 Date Filed: 02/22/2019 Page: 4 of 5

• The State Department has been aware all along that Colombia’s
diplomatic note does not say that there is any treaty in effect.

The document from the Department of State establishes that the State

Department has long been aware of Colombia’s position. It states with emphasis

added:

Colombia and the United States have not had a mutually recognized
extradition treaty since 1986. ...The [U.S. government] maintains that
the treaty is valid, but [the government of Colombia]’s refusal to
recognize it has forced the [U.S. government] to follow Colombian
extradition laws when submitting requests to the [government of
Colombia].

• Tom Heinemann’s testimony was necessary to clarify this for the

extradition court.

The only evidence supporting respondents’ position is Tom Heinemann’s gloss

on the diplomatic note. To understand how Mr. Heinemann reached his conclusion,

Minister Arias subpoenaed him. He resisted coming to Miami, EC99, even though

two other U.S. government lawyers traveled from Washington, D.C., for every

hearing. Because the Extradition Court quashed the subpoena, EC107, the record fails

to disclose how Mr. Heinemann reached a conclusion that defies all the evidence. See

Appellant’s Brief at 41.

2
 Case: 18-14328 Date Filed: 02/22/2019 Page: 5 of 5

CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE AND SERVICE

Word Limit. I certify that this brief complies with the type-volume limitation

of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7) because its numbered pages contain

381 words.

Service. I certify that on February 22, 2019, this motion was filed with the

Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF; that it was served upon the respondents’ counsel

through that system.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________________ _______________________________
David Oscar Markus Ricardo J. Bascuas
Florida Bar No. 119318 Florida Bar No. 093157
Lauren Doyle 1311 Miller Drive
Florida Bar No. 117687 Coral Gables, Florida 33146
Markus/Moss PLLC 305-284-2672
40 N.W. Third Street Penthouse One
Miami, Florida 33128
305-379-6667