US Attorney’s Office asks the Court to reject Toledo’s maneuver

He assures that the former president has not presented solid arguments

The United States Attorney General requested the Court of the Ninth Circuit of the Court in San Francisco (California) reject “the last effort” of the former president Alexander Toledo to stop the execution of his extradition to Peru.

By means of a brief presented before said collegiate, the defense of the US Government also requested that the former president’s new request to be granted an additional 21 days to the 14 days of provisional suspension (until April 20, 2023) be rejected. ) that was granted in order to support your appeal for “reconsideration” against your deportation.

“As discussed, Toledo has not been able to establish that he meets this Court’s criteria for panel or plenary reconsideration. This Court can confidently decide Toledo’s motion within the timetable it set, and should deny Toledo’s last-ditch effort to delay his extradition.”

“For the reasons stated, this Court must deny the appeal for reconsideration and the request for a new suspension of Toledo’s extradition,” they remarked.

According to the US Attorney General’s Office, Toledo seeks reconsideration by a panel of judges, despite the fact that he has not explained “particularly [qué] points of law or fact” believes that “the Court [ha] overlooked or misunderstood” in the previous denial of your stay request.

Nor, they point out, has it identified any change in the factual or legal circumstances after the court order was issued, to justify the panel’s reconsideration.

On the contrary, they noted, the previous response “is already the result of the panel’s reconsideration” of the merits of the refusal of a previous refusal (November 2022) that Toledo presented for a stay of extradition. Therefore, Toledo should not be granted a third opportunity to file another “reconsideration” that is not provided for in the Circuit Rule. [27-10(b) (una parte “puede presentar solo una moción para… la reconsideración de una orden del panel de mociones)].

They pointed out that full review is “totally discretionary” and “reserved for ‘a matter of exceptional importance’ or ‘to ensure or maintain the uniformity of court decisions’”. And, in the case of Toledo, it does not meet either of the two criteria.