El Chapo's Extradition Challenge

Case 1:09-cr-00466-BMC-RLM Document 110 Filed 08/03/17 Page 1 of 33 PageID #: 1343
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :
- against - : S4 09 Cr. 466 (BMC)
JOAQUIN ARCHIVALDO GUZMAN LOERA, :
Defendant. :
------------------------------------------------------------------X
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT JOAQUIN

ARCHIVALDO GUZMAN LOERAS MOTION TO DISMISS THE
INDICTMENT BASED ON VIOLATION OF THE RULE OF
SPECIALTY IN THE EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN
MEXICO AND THE UNITED STATES
Federal Defenders of New York, Inc.

One Pierrepont Plaza, 16th Floor
Brooklyn, New York 11201
(718) 330-1200
Counsel for Joaquin Archivaldo Guzman Loera

Michelle A. Gelernt
Michael K. Schneider
Edward S. Zas
Of Counsel
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :
- against - : S4 09 Cr. 466 (BMC)
JOAQUIN ARCHIVALDO GUZMAN LOERA, :
Defendant. :
------------------------------------------------------------------X
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT JOAQUIN

ARCHIVALDO GUZMAN LOERAS MOTION TO DISMISS THE
INDICTMENT BASED ON VIOLATION OF THE RULE OF
SPECIALTY IN THE EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN
MEXICO AND THE UNITED STATES
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Defendant Joaquin Archivaldo Guzman Loera (Guzman) respectfully
submits this memorandum in support of his motion to dismiss the Fourth
Superseding Indictment (the Indictment) on the ground that this
prosecution violates the Rule of Specialty contained in the Extradition Treaty
between the United States and Mexico. Extradition Treaty, U.S.-Mexico, art.
17(c), May 4, 1978, [1979] 31 U.S.T. 5059.
The defense recognizes that the Second Circuits recent decision in United
States v. Barinas, __ F.3d __, 2017 WL 3197535 (2d Cir. July 28, 2017),
1
appears to preclude this Court from granting this motion on the ground that
Mr. Guzman lacks standing. Nevertheless, because the circuits are divided
over the standing question, and because we respectfully submit that Barinas
was wrongly decided, the defense brings this motion to preserve Mr.
Guzmans rights in the event the Barinas rule is overturned.
FACTS 1
On or about May 20, 2016, the Mexican government granted requests
made by the government of the United States that Mr. Guzman be extradited
to this country. These extradition requests referenced indictments pending in
the Southern District of California (SDCA) (95 CR 973) and the Western
District of Texas (WDTX) (12 CR 849). Mr. Guzman challenged these grants
of extradition, filing actions for amparo proceedings, which were denied on
October 20, 2016. See Draft English Translation of Redacted Consent
Agreement (Redacted Consent Agreement), Bates No. 466, attached hereto
as Exhibit A. Mr. Guzman appealed these decisions. However, on January 19,
2017, the Fifth Collegiate Panel Court for Criminal Matters in Mexico City
confirmed the judgments of the lower courts in Mexico and denied Mr.
1
The facts underlying this motion are based on a redacted Spanish language
document titled, in English, Consent to the Exception to the Rule of Specialty and
the Draft English Translation of that document (Redacted Consent Agreement)
provided by the government in discovery. We provide other facts on information and
belief, based on the defense teams investigation, including discussions with those
who were involved with Mr. Guzmans extradition from Mexico.
2
Guzmans appeals. Id. As is clear from the face of the Redacted Consent
Agreement itself, no extradition request based on the instant Indictment was
made to the Mexican government. Id. at Bates No. 467-468. Certainly Mr.
Guzman and his attorneys in Mexico were never served with such a request.
The indictment in the SDCA charges Mr. Guzman with one count of
conspiracy to import and possess with the intent to distribute cocaine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). The charged conspiracy supposedly began
on a date unknown to the grand jury and is alleged to have continued up to
June 23, 1995.
The WDTX indictment charges Mr. Guzman, in seven separate counts,
with racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d); conspiracy to possess
with the intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
846 and 841(a)(1); conspiracy to import cocaine and marijuana, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. 963, 952(a), and 960(a); conspiracy to launder money, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(2)(A); conspiracy to possess firearms, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c) and (o); murder, in violation of 21
848(e)(1)(A); and engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. 848(b)(1). Except for the murder count, the WDTX indictment
alleges that all the charged conduct occurred between January 1, 2000, and
April 11, 2012. The murder count alleges acts between September 3, 2009
and September 8, 2009.
3
The requests for Mr. Guzmans extradition to the WDTX and the SDCA
were filed in June 2015. He was arrested in Mexico in January 2016. As is
required under the Extradition Treaty between the United States and
Mexico, both extradition requests contained witness declarations in support
of the extradition petitions. 2 In support of its extradition petition to the
WDTX, the United States submitted the declaration of Jesus Manuel Fierro
Mendez, dated 11-1-2012. 3 Fierro Mendez is an admitted and convicted
corrupt former Mexican law enforcement official and narco-trafficker. At the
time the government submitted the sworn declaration of Fierro Mendez, the
government knew or should have known that his declaration contained
material falsehoods and misrepresentations. Specifically, Fierro Mendez
swore in his declaration that he had personally met Mr. Guzman and had
been personally present and observed Mr. Guzman negotiate a firearms deal.
In 2010, however, Fierro Mendez, testifying as a cooperating witness for the
government, swore under oath that he never met Mr. Guzman. See United
2
Though the government refused to provide Mr. Guzman with any discovery
related to his extradition, except for the Consent Agreement and the Draft
Translation, defense counsel were able to obtain the extradition petitions relating to
the WDTX, which included the declarations of five civilian witnesses, and the
SDCA, which included the declarations of two civilian witnesses.
3
See Declaration of Jesus Manuel Fierro Mendez and a Draft English Translation
of the same, attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Declaration is dated 11-1-2012. It is
unclear if this refers to November 1 or January 11, 2012.
4
States v. Chavez-Bettancourt, et al., 08-CR-2985-DB, (WDTX) Dkt. No. 847 at
25; see also Dkt. No. 846 at 168-69 (March 4-6, 2010). Further, Fierro
Mendezs declaration appears to directly contradict his sworn trial testimony
in other respects. At trial, he claimed he did not begin working for the drug
traffickers until he left the police force in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico in April of
2007. Id. Dkt. No. 846 at 135; Dkt. No. 847 at 5, 27-28. His declaration, in
contrast, claimed he began working for the traffickers in 2005. He also stated
in the declaration, contrary to his trial testimony, that he continued to work
as a police officer until 2008. In his trial testimony, Fierro Mendez admitted
to lying to U.S. federal agents about whether he had been the victim of an
accidental shooting that rendered him disabled and forced him to resign from
the police force in Juarez. Id. Dkt. No. 847at 6-7.
Fierro Mendezs trial testimony in United States v. Chavez-Bettancourt
was not provided to the government of Mexico. Nor was the government of
Mexico alerted to the fact that claims made in Fierro Mendezs declaration
were contradicted by his earlier, sworn testimony in the United States
District Court for the WDTX. Given that the Assistant United States
Attorney who submitted the affidavit in support of the request for Mr.
Guzmans extradition to the WDTX, Kristal M. Wade, is noticed as a lead
attorney in United States v. Chavez-Bettancourt, the government can hardly
5
claim that it was unaware of the above inconsistencies when it requested Mr.
Guzmans extradition. 4
The government also appears to have knowingly submitted a false and
misleading witness statement to secure Mr. Guzmans extradition to the
SDCA. In June 2015, Assistant United States Attorney Todd Robinson
submitted an affidavit in support of the United States governments request
for Mr. Guzmans extradition to the SDCA. The affidavit contains a summary
of the facts and evidence that were presented to the government of Mexico in
the United States governments request for extradition. The evidence
included the sworn declarations of two civilian witnesses: Miguel Angel
Martinez-Martinez (Martinez-Martinez) and another cooperating witness. 5
4
Defense counsel was able to locate Fierro Mendezs trial testimony by combing the
public docket after obtaining the WDTX extradition requesta document the
government refused to disclose in discovery. As the Court is aware, the government
has provided no discovery relating to Mr. Guzmans extradition (except for the
Consent Agreement and Draft Translation), nor has it provided any Brady material.
We were unable to find trial testimony as to any of the four other civilian witnesses
who provided declarations in support of the extradition request made by the WDTX.
Therefore, defense counsel is not in a position to establish whether other declarants,
in addition to Fierro Mendez, lied in their declarations submitted to the Mexican
government.
5
While both Martinez-Martinez and the other cooperating witness have testified in
United States District Courts as cooperating witnesses, only Martinez-Martinezs
testimony is publicly available. The testimony of the other cooperating witness has
been sealed and has not been provided to the defense by the government. Therefore,
the defense is not in a position to demonstrate falsehoods in this witnesss
declaration.
6
In his sworn declaration dated November 12, 2014, Martinez-Martinez
claimed to have personally worked for Mr. Guzman from 1987 until 1993,
when Mr. Guzman was arrested. See Declaration of Miguel Angel Martinez-
Martinez, attached hereto as Exhibit C at 1. He further stated that his first
job with the cartel was to arrange shipments of cocaine from Colombia to
Mexico and that he was placed in charge of flights from Colombia to Mexico.
Id at 1-2. Martinez-Martinez swore that he personally traveled to Colombia
on February 28, 1988, to arrange the first of these flights, where he
negotiated the transportation of 1,420 kilograms of cocaine with a Carlos
Uribe. 6 Martinez-Martinez further claimed that the February 28, 1988 flight
was the first of approximately 160 such flights. Id. at 2. He then continued
to relay details about the 160 flights, implying first-hand knowledge of the
details of such flights and that the flights were conducted in the same
manner as the initial flight. Id. In his declaration, Martinez-Martinez
claimed to have negotiated this initial shipment specifically with Carlos
Uribe. Id. at 2.
6
There appears to be no public record of a case against any Carlos Uribe matching
Martinez-Martinezs description of a major Colombian drug trafficker, nor does
there appear to be any news account of a Colombian drug trafficker by the name
Carlos Uribe.
7
Martinez-Martinezs declaration is clearly drafted in a manner to imply
to the government of Mexico that he had first-hand knowledge of each of
these 160 alleged flights and that he was physically present in Colombia
when the alleged shipments were transported. When the United States
government provided Martinez-Martinezs affidavit to the Mexican
government, however, it knew that Martinez-Martinez had made contrary
statements in sworn testimony given years prior to the execution of the
affidavit.
In March 2006, Martinez-Martinez testified in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona pursuant to a government
cooperation agreement in United States v. Felipe De Jesus Corona-Verbena,
91-CR-446(TUC)(FRZ). 7 In that trial, Martinez-Martinez was questioned
regarding his first flight to Colombia, and the details regarding his purported
role in arranging cocaine shipments from Colombia to Mexico. Though, in his
declaration, Martinez-Martinez identified Carlos Uribe as the sole
Colombian point of contact for his negotiations for the alleged transportation
of cocaine from Colombia to Mexico, he did not even mention Uribes name in
his sworn testimony on direct examination. See Exhibit D at 1-103. In fact,
from Martinez-Martinezs direct testimony, it appears that the alleged deal
7
A copy of Mr. Martinez-Martinezs testimony in United States v. Felipe De Jesus
Corona-Verbena, 91-CR-446(TUC)(FRZ) is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
8
was arranged with Alberto Araujo, a Mexican working for the cartel in
Colombia, and a Colombian known to him as Lucas Bettencourt. Id. at 17-23.
On cross-examination, in response to a question by defense counsel,
Martinez-Martinez claimed to have met Carlos Uribe and picked up the
cocaine from him, but denied that he had made the arrangements to
purchase cocaine from Uribe. Id. at 120. Martinez-Martinez further testified
that it was Araujo who had made the specific arrangements for the alleged
purchase of cocaine, and that Martinez-Martinez was only present when
some of the arrangements were made. Id. Martinez-Martinez testified that he
himself was only physically present for two such cocaine flights. Id. at 17-29,
124, 135. He further testified that he did not coordinate all of the
approximately 160 flights. Id. at 136.
The U.S. government was well aware of Mr. Martinez-Martinezs 2006
testimony in 2015 when it asked the government of Mexico to rely on his
declaration in determining whether to grant Mr. Guzmans extradition to the
SDCA. AUSA Robinson was present in court for Martinez-Martinezs
testimony in 2006, where Martinez-Martinez identified him as the attorney
with whom [he] began cooperating. Id. at 103. Nonetheless, the United
States not only failed to provide Martinez-Martinezs trial testimony to the
Mexican government, but also failed to alert the Mexican government to the
contradictions between Martinez-Martinezs earlier testimony and his
9
declaration which, if known, would cast doubt on the veracity of his affidavit.
The United States government further hid from Mexico that Martinez-
Martinez was an admitted cocaine abuser, who had acknowledged a daily
habit of four grams of cocaine a day for the fifteen years preceding his arrest.
Id. at 126-127. This was another important fact that the Mexican government
should have been made aware of when deciding whether to rely on Martinez-
Martinezs declaration in connection with Mr. Guzmans extradition.
After his arrest, Mr. Guzman, through his attorneys in Mexico,
challenged the legality of the United States extradition requests. Mr.
Guzman filed actions for amparo proceedings (akin to American habeas
corpus proceedings), which were denied on October 20, 2016. At some point
after his arrest, Mr. Guzman was transferred to a prison near Juarez. He
appealed the denial of his amparos. On January 19, 2017, while Mr. Guzman
was imprisoned in Juarez and his attorney was in the same city preparing to
visit him, the Fifth Collegiate Panel Court for Criminal Matters in Mexico
City heard and denied Mr. Guzmans appeal of the extradition orders. That
same day, suddenly and without warning to Mr. Guzmans attorneys, Mr.
Guzman was airlifted across the border to the United States.
On the same date, January 19, 2017, the United States government,
through Diplomatic Note Number 17-0245, requested that the Mexican
government consent to an exception to the rule of specialty (Request for
10
Exception). 8 According to the United States government, at the time Mr.
Guzman was spirited out of Mexico, he was in custody for the charges for
which extradition had been grantedthe charges pending in the SDCA and
WDTX. Despite the U.S. governments confirmation to the Mexican
government that Mr. Guzman was being held only for the charges pending in
California and Texas, the plane carrying Mr. Guzman headed straight for
Long Island and the EDNY.
The Request for Exception apparently included several sworn
statements from various American law enforcement officials describing, in
detail, the charges pending against Mr. Guzman in the EDNY as well as a
history of the investigation of Mr. Guzman in this District. 9 Though the
defense has not seen the Request for Exception or the affidavits attached to
it, experience tells us that these documents likely consist of hundreds of
8
The government has refused to provide the Request for Exception. The only
documents relevant to extradition that the government has provided to the defense
are the Consent Agreement and the Draft Translation. The Consent Agreement
purports to quote the Request for Exception, which describes Mr. Guzmans custody
status on January 19, 2017.
9
The government describes the Request for Exception as including: (1) an affidavit
from an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA); (2) an affidavit from a law
enforcement officer; (3) affidavits from cooperating witnesses; (4) the text of
pertinent United States statutes; (5) certified copies of the indictment and arrest
warrant for the defendant; and (6) documentary evidence, such as seizure
photographs and lab reports, submitted as exhibits to the law enforcement agent
affidavit. See Dkt. No. 84 at n.1.
11
pages. As an example, the SDCA and WDTX extradition requests contain
hundreds of pages and each petition is more than five inches thick when
printed on standard paper.
In response to the Request for Exception, the Mexican Office of the
Secretary of Foreign Affairs asked the Mexican Attorney Generals Office to
issue an opinion concerning the Request for Exception. See Exhibit A at Bates
No. 471. Miraculously, this request for a legal opinion was also allegedly
made on January 19, 2017, perhaps as Mr. Guzman was 30,000 feet in the
air, flying farther and farther away from San Diego and El Paso. Even more
miraculously, the Mexican Attorney Generals Office purportedly issued its
opinion concerning the Request for Exception on the same day. Id.
The Redacted Consent Agreement itself, numbering eighty-seven pages
in its original Spanish iteration, is also dated January 19, 2017. 10 In the
Redacted Consent Agreement, the Mexican government conceded that the
10
The tale of all that occurred on January 19, 2017, strains credulity. The
governments of the United States and Mexico would have the Court and Mr.
Guzman believe that the Request for Exception (an inches-thick document of
hundreds of pages) was presented to the Mexican government on January 19 and
that, on the same day, the Mexican Foreign Ministry, through an official letter,
asked for and received the Mexican Attorney Generals Offices opinion on the
Request and that the Mexican Foreign Ministry then completed and signed the
eighty-seven page Consent Agreement. Such a sequence of events is unlikely.
Furthermore, Mr. Guzman requested the extradition documents during his first
court appearance before Magistrate Judge Orenstein on January 20, 2017. The
government resisted providing the Consent Agreement to the defense until the
Courts order of February 11, 2017. The government finally disclosed the Consent
Agreement on February 14, 2017.
12
charges contained in the Request for Exception were different from those for
which the International Extradition was granted. Nevertheless, according to
the face of the Redacted Consent Agreement, the Mexican Office of Foreign
Affairs agreed to the United States governments request for an exception to
the rule of specialty.
ARGUMENT
I. The Court should dismiss the Indictment because this prosecution

prosecution violates the Extradition Treaty between the United
States and Mexico.
A. Legal background
The doctrine of specialty prohibits prosecution of a defendant for a crime
other than the crime for which he has been extradited. United States v.
Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 115 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Alvarez
Machain, 504 U.S. 655, 659 (1992)). This doctrine also requires the receiving
country, here the United States, to adhere to any limitations placed on
prosecution by the surrendering country, here Mexico. See United States v.
Cuevas, 496 F.3d 256, 262 (2d Cir. 2007).
Courts look to the language of the applicable treaty to determine the
protection an extradited person is afforded under the doctrine of specialty.
United States v. Andonian, 29 F.3d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1994). Under Second
Circuit law, whether an extradition treaty permits prosecution for a certain
crime or imposes a certain condition specified in the extradition request is a
13
matter for the extraditing country to determine. United States v. Campbell,
300 F.3d 202, 209 (2d Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).
Further, in reviewing an extradition agreement for potential violations,
courts may consider whether the surrendering country has objected or would
object to what actually took place after extradition. See, e.g., Fiocconi v.
Attorney General, 462 F.2d 475, 481 (2d Cir. 1972). Where no record of the
extraditing nations view exists or if the record is unclear, courts should look
to the extradition decrees and any diplomatic correspondence to assess
whether the extraditing country could have anticipated the event the
defendant protests. See United States v. Paroutian, 299 F.2d 486, 491
(2d Cir. 1962) (noting that appropriate consideration under doctrine of
specialty is whether extraditing country would consider acts for which the
defendant was prosecuted as independent from those for which he was
extradited).
B. This prosecution violates the Extradition Treaty.
The Extradition Treaty between the United States and Mexico contains a
specific Rule-of-Specialty provision. See Extradition Treaty, U.S.-Mexico, art.
17(c), May 4, 1978, [1979] 31 U.S.T. 5059. It provides in relevant part:
A person extradited under the present Treaty shall not be

detained, tried or punished in the territory of the requesting
Party for an offense other than that for which the extradition has
been granted nor be extradited by that Party to a third States
unless [t]he requested Party has given its consent to his
14
detention, trial, punishment or extradition to a third State for an

offense other than that for which extradition was granted.
Id.
Here, Mr. Guzman is indisputably being detained and prosecuted for
offenses other than that for which the extradition has been granted. He was
extradited only for the charges currently pending in the SDCA and the
WDTX. Extradition has never been granted for the charges he faces here in
New York. Accordingly, this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Mr.
Guzman, see, e.g., United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 115 (2d Cir. 2003)
(doctrine of specialty limits a Courts personal jurisdiction over the
defendant) (citation omitted), and the Indictment should be dismissed.
C. Mr. Guzman has standing to raise a violation of the

Extradition Treaty.
1. Supreme Court precedent grants standing to extradited

defendants to bring specialty and extradition treaty
challenges.
The doctrine of standing asks whether a litigant is entitled to have a
federal court resolve his grievance. This inquiry involves both constitutional
limitations on federal-court jurisdiction and prudential limits on its exercise.
Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125, 128 (2004) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
The Supreme Court held that criminal defendants have standing to
invoke the rule of specialty in the same case where the Court first recognized
15
the doctrine of specialty itself, United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407
(1886). That case is still the Supreme Courts only word on the subject, and
no subsequent pronouncements from the Court have cast any doubt on the
holding.
In Rauscher, Great Britain extradited the defendant, a second mate on an
American vessel, so that he could be prosecuted for murder. Instead, the
United States tried and convicted him on a charge of inflicting cruel and
unusual punishment on the victim, a lesser included offense under United
States law. Id. at 40911. The applicable extradition treaty, however, listed
murder as an extraditable offense but did not list the crime of which he was
convicted. Id. Though Great Britain did not officially object, the Court held
that a person who has been brought within the jurisdiction of the court, by
virtue of proceedings under an extradition treaty, can only be tried for one of
the offenses described in that treaty, and for the offense with which he is
charged in the proceedings for his extradition . . . . Id. at 430. The Court
distinguished between the United States (where treaties are the law of the
land equivalent to acts of a legislature) and other nations (where treaties are
merely contracts between sovereigns). Id. at 418.
In Great Britain, matters of treaty enforcement at that time would have
been handled by the Crown, but in the United States Rauscher contemplates
a judicial remedy. Because of the status of extradition treaties under our
16
system of government, the rights described in the treaty are conferred on
both the extradited individual and the extraditing government:
[A] treaty may also contain provisions which confer certain rights
upon the citizens or subjects of one of the nations residing in the
territorial limits of the other, which partake of the nature of
municipal law, and which are capable of enforcement as between
private parties in the courts of the country . . . . The Constitution
of the United States places such provisions as these in the same
category as other laws of Congress, by its declaration that This
Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof, and all
treaties made or which shall be made under authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme law of the land. A treaty,
then, is a law of the land, as an Act of Congress is, whenever its
provisions prescribe a rule by which the rights of the private
citizen or subject may be determined. And when such rights are of
a nature to be enforced in a court of justice, that court resorts to
the treaty for a rule of decision for the case before it as it would to
a statute.
Id. at 41819 (emphasis added). Though the rights conferred under the treaty
ultimately belong to the contracting nations, Rauscher makes clear that
specialty rights are also conferred under the contract to the individuals who
are the objects of the contract. [I]t is impossible to conceive of the exercise of
jurisdiction in such a case for any other purpose than that mentioned in the
treaty, and ascertained by the proceedings under which the party is
extradited, without an implication of fraud upon the rights of the party
extradited, and of bad faith to the country which permitted his extradition.
Id. at 422.
17
The Rauscher Court conceived of its holding as a complete answer to the
proposition that the rights of persons extradited under the treaty cannot be
enforced by the judicial branch of the government, and that they can only
appeal to the executive branches of the treaty governments for redress.
Id. at 431.
2. After Rauscher, at least four Circuits have held that a

defendant may raise a specialty claim.
Following Rauscher, the Tenth Circuit has held that a defendant may
raise a specialty claim. See United States v. Levy, 905 F.2d 326, 328 n.1
(10th Cir. 1990) (relying on Rauscher for the proposition that defendant had
standing to raise a specialty challenge). The Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh
Circuits have similarly held that a defendant can raise a specialty challenge,
but only to the extent that the extraditing country could raise it. See, e.g.,
United States v. Thirion, 813 F.2d 146, 151 n.5 (8th Cir. 1987) (The
governments argument that [defendant] lacked standing to complain of a
violation of the treaty is without merit.); Andonian, supra, 29 F.3d at 1435
(An extradited person may raise whatever objections the extraditing country
is entitled to raise.) (citations omitted); United States v. Puentes, 50
F.3d 1567, 1572 (11th Cir. 1995) (We hold that a criminal defendant has
standing to allege a violation of the principle of specialty. We limit, however,
18
the defendants challenges under the principle of specialty to only those
objections that the rendering country might have brought.).
At least three circuits have decided this question in the other direction.
The Third Circuit held that only the parties to the treaty may raise a
specialty issue. See United States ex rel. Saroop v. Garcia, 109 F.3d 165, 168
(3d Cir. 1997) (Had [petitioner] brought suit invoking the [extradition]
treaty or the Rule of Specialty, she would lack standing.) (footnote omitted).
So, too, has the Seventh Circuit. See Matta-Ballesteros v. Henman, 896 F.2d
255, 259 (7th Cir. 1990) (It is well established that individuals have no
standing to challenge violations of international treaties in the absence of a
protest by the sovereigns involved.) (citation omitted). And the Second
Circuit held last week in Barinas that an extradited individual lacks
standing to complain of noncompliance with an extradition treaty unless the
treaty [contains] language indicating that the intent of the treaty drafters
was that such benefits could be vindicated through private enforcement.
Barinas, 2017 WL 3197535, at *5 (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted).
Mr. Guzman recognizes that Barinas appears to deprive him of
prudential standing to bring this motion. Id. Nevertheless, we respectfully
submit that Barinas was wrongly decided, is inconsistent with Rauscher, and
that Mr. Guzman does have standing to invoke the specialty clause of the
19
Extradition Treaty. See also Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of
the United States 477, comment b (June 2017 update) (Both the person
extradited and the extraditing state are beneficiaries of the [specialty]
doctrine. While the case law in the United States and elsewhere is not
consistent, it appears that the person extradited has standing to raise the
issue of variance between the extradition request and the indictment by
motion during or in advance of his trial.).
II. The Court should dismiss the Indictment despite the Consent
procured from Mexico.
As noted, the U.S.-Mexico Extradition Treaty prohibits detention,
prosecution, and punishment for offenses beyond those for which extradition
was granted unless Mexico has given its consent. Here, the government
contends that Mexico has given such consent, relying on the Redacted
Consent Agreement. That document does not preclude the granting of this
motion.
First, though the Redacted Consent Agreement is lengthy and detailed, it
does not indicate that Mexico ever consented to the criminal forfeiture
allegations contained in the Indictment. Indeed, it does not appear that
Mexico was even asked to consent to the inclusion of those allegations against
Mr. Guzman. Accordingly and notwithstanding Mexicos purported consent,
20
the forfeiture allegations violate the Rule of Specialty and should be
dismissed.
Second, with respect to the remaining counts in the Indictment, the
Second Circuit has suggested an American court need not accept a foreign
nations agreement to extradite (or to waive the rule of specialty) as
conclusive on its face. In United States v. Bout, 731 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2013),
the Circuit addressedon the meritsa defendants contention that a Thai
courts extradition decision was invalid because it was based on material
mistakes of fact. See id. at 240. The Circuits decision to resolve the issue on
the merits indicates that, while American courts will not second-guess the
wisdom of another countrys decision to grant extradition or waive the Rule of
Specialty, see United States v. GaravitoGarcia, 827 F.3d 242, 247 (2d Cir.
2016), they will review whether to give effect to the foreign nations decision
or waiver in light of traditional (and internationally recognized) principles,
such as duress, fraud, and unconscionability. See also Andonian, supra, 29
F.3d at 1438 (considering whether doctrine of specialty was violated in light
of defendants assert[ion] that the evidence presented to Uruguay by the
United States government, including a sworn declaration from a cooperating
witness, was false); United States v. Siriprechapong, 181 F.R.D. 416, 420
(N.D. Cal. 1998) (granting discovery of document relating to extradition of
defendant because it has the supervisory power to examine claims of fraud,
21
bad faith and perjury . . .). Cf. Apple & Eve, LLC v. Yantain North Andre
Juice Co., 610 F. Supp. 2d 226, 229 (E.D.N.Y 2009) (noting that while
international arbitration agreements are generally enforced, a limited
exception exists when the arbitration clause itself is (1) subject to an
internationally recognized defense such as duress, mistake, fraud, or waiver,
or (2) contravenes fundamental policies of the forum state) (citations and
quotation marks omitted).
Here, the Redacted Consent Agreement should not be given effect because
(1) it appears to have been predicated on extradition grants procured based
on materially false and misleading assertions and omissions, and (2) the
United States is holding Mr. Guzman under cruel and inhumane conditions
of solitary confinement, made even more harsh by the so-called Special
Administrative Measures, which Mexico has not agreed to, and which vitiate
the validity of the Consent Agreement.
A. Mexico did not consent to the forfeiture allegations.
The Fourth Superseding Indictment includes four separate sets of
allegations seeking criminal forfeiture. Indictment 4653. There is no
evidence, however, that Mr. Guzman was extradited to face forfeiture charges
or that Mexico consented to the United States pursuing forfeiture against
him. Accordingly, since criminal forfeiture amounts to prosecution and
punishment for a separate offense within the meaning of the U.S.-Mexico
22
Extradition Treaty, Mr. Guzman is being detained, tried, and punished for
offenses other than that for which the extradition has been granted, in
violation of the Treatys Rule of Specialty. Thus, the forfeiture allegations
should be dismissed.
Judge Weinsteins decision in United States v. JuradoRodriguez, 907
F. Supp. 568 (E.D.N.Y. 1995), is on point. There, the defendant was
extradited to the United States from Luxembourg on drug and money
laundering charges. But the extradition request did not contain any forfeiture
allegations. The United States nevertheless included forfeiture allegations in
the indictment. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the pursuit of
criminal forfeiture violated the Rule-of-Specialty provision contained in the
United States-Luxembourg Extradition Treaty. That provision stated in
relevant part that an extradited person shall not be tried or punished in the
country to which his extradition has been granted for a crime or offence
not provided for by the present convention. . . . Id. at 573.
The court conducted an evidentiary hearing at which experts in
international criminal law testified. One of the experts, Professor Cherif
Bassiouni, a world renowned scholar of international law and extradition,
testified that the forfeiture allegations against the defendant were unlawful
under the applicable treaty because they were not included in the extradition
request. Id. at 574, 575. The proper procedure under such circumstances is,
23
he suggested, to request a supplemental extradition decree from
Luxembourg. Such supplemental requests are, he pointed out, routinely
made after physical extradition. Id. at 575. Judge Weinstein summarized
Professor Bassiounis testimony this way:
Given that criminal forfeiture is, in his view, a separate

crime for purposes of the extradition decree, requiring a
separate hearing in the United States, it should be
enumerated in any extradition request. Professor Bassiouni
noted that the United States Department of State, Office of
International Affairs, routinely requests a separate charge
for forfeiture matters in the extradition requests from
foreign countries. He concluded that it was necessary for
the United States to make a supplemental request to
Luxembourg based on the specific forfeiture charges in the
indictment before the forfeiture charges could be proven.
Id. at 57576. Though the court did not rule definitively on the issue, it
indicated that it was dubious about the propriety of the United States
proceeding on the forfeiture allegations without Luxembourgs consent. Id. at
581.
The same analysis applies here. Mexico and the United States likely
understood the term offenses in the Extradition Treaty to include charges of
criminal forfeiture. And since the United States Department of State
routinely requests a separate charge for forfeiture matters in the extradition
requests from foreign countries, id. at 575, it should have done so here. As
there is no evidence that the United States ever obtainedor even sought
24
permission from Mexico to pursue the criminal forfeiture charges against Mr.
Guzman, the forfeiture allegations should be dismissed.
B. The Consent Agreement should not be given effect because it

was procured through material misrepresentations and
omissions.
The Consent Agreement should also not be given effect because it appears
to have been procured based on information that the United States knew or
should have known was materially false, misleading, and incomplete.
As discussed earlier, the United States provided Mexico with witness
declarations in support of its petitions to extradite Mr. Guzman to face the
Texas and California indictments. While the defense has been denied
discovery of what information was provided to Mexico in connection with the
Request for Exception, similar declarations were presumably provided to, and
relied upon by, Mexico in connection with that request.
The limited information the defense has been able to gather indicates
that the declarations contained false and misleading information, as the
United States government knew or should have known. The 2012 declaration
of convicted narco-trafficker Fierro Mendez, for example, averred that Fierro
Mendez had met Mr. Guzman personally, and had seen him negotiate a
firearms deal. But in 2010, Fierro Mendez testified at a trial as a cooperating
witness for the government, and swore he never met Mr. Guzman. There is
no indication that Mexico was ever made aware of this glaring contradiction.
25
Nor did the United States apparently ever inform Mexico of other
contradictions between Fierro Mendezs 2012 declaration and his earlier
sworn trial testimony. He claimed at trial, for example, that he did not begin
working for the cartel until he left the police force in April 2007. But in his
declaration provided to Mexico, he claimed that he began working for the
cartel two years earlier, in 2005. He also claimed, contrary to his trial
testimony, that he continued to work as a police officer until 2008. Again,
there is no evidence that Mexico was advised of these discrepancies.
Further, Fierro Mendez testified at trial that he lied to United States
officials about whether he had been the victim of an accidental shooting that
disabled him and forced him to resign from the Mexican police force. As far as
we can tell, Mexico was never alerted to these lies.
Similarly, the 2015 affidavit of Martinez-Martinez, provided to the
Mexican government in support of the California extradition request
contained false and misleading statements. Martinez-Martinez swore in his
affidavit that he arranged a shipment of cocaine with a Colombian man
named Carlos Uribe in 1988. However, nine years earlier, Martinez-Martinez
had testified under oath that another Mexican, Alberto Araujo, had arranged
this shipment with a man named Lucas Bettencourt and that his (Martinez-
Martinezs) role was to accompany the shipment.
26
Martinez-Martinezs affidavit is written to give the impression that he
was personally involved with 160 drug shipments from Colombia to Mexico.
However, during his trial testimony, taken years before he swore to the
affidavit, he stated that he was only physically present on two flights and
that he did not participate in arranging each of the alleged 160 flights.
Furthermore, the affidavit makes no mention of Martinez-Martinezs decade
and a half abuse of cocaine, which only ended upon his arrest.
The information relevant to the veracity of the witnesses who signed
affidavits that was kept from Mexico is extremely important. Had it been
disclosed, this information would likely have affected not only Mexicos
decision to grant Mr. Guzmans extradition to California and Texas, but also
its decision to waive the Rule of Specialty.
Moreover, there is no reason to assume that Fierro Mendez and Martinez-
Martinez were the only witnesses who gave false and inconsistent testimony
in support of Mr. Guzmans extradition and prosecution in this District. Since
the defense has not been allowed access to any of the diplomatic
correspondence, the government should be required to demonstrate (at least
in camera) that the other information provided to Mexico was truthful and
accurate. And we renew our request that the government be required to
produce to the defense an unredacted version of the Consent Agreement, and
the documents submitted to Mexico that led to it.
27
In summary, the Consent Agreement relied upon by the government
appears to have been procured through materially false and misleading
information. As a consequence, the Consent Agreement should not be
accepted as valid.
C. The Consent Agreement should not be given effect

because of the continuing violation of Mr. Guzmans basic
human rights.
Finally, the Court should decline to give effect to the Consent Agreement
because the extraordinarily harsh conditions of Mr. Guzmans confinement
violate his basic human rights, were apparently never disclosed to Mexico,
and vitiate the Consent Agreement.
There is no evidence that Mexico was made aware that Mr. Guzman
would be detained under extraordinarily harsh and inhumane conditions of
solitary confinement, coupled with restrictive Special Administrative
Measures. These conditions, as applied to Mr. Guzman, are tantamount to
torture. Had Mexico been advised of these conditions, it almost certainly
would not have consented to Mr. Guzmans detention and prosecution in this
District. Thus, the conditions of Mr. Guzmans confinement, under which he
has no access to fresh air, has been cut off from any communication with his
wife (she has still not received the letter he sent more than a month ago), and
thus far has been allowed no contact with any member of his own family,
render the Consent Agreement ineffective and unenforceable.
28
As the Court is aware, Mr. Guzman has been held in isolation in a Special
Housing Unit (SHU) at the Metropolitan Correctional Center since his
arrival in the United States on January 19, 2017. His only outside contact
with human beings is with his legal team. The Justice Departments Office of
the Inspector General (OIG) recently deemed this kind of detention to be
solitary confinement, notwithstanding the Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
euphemistic use of terminology such as restrictive housing to describe its
isolation practices. Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Dept of Justice,
Review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons Use of Restrictive Housing for
Inmates with Mental Illness 15 (2017),
https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2017/e1705.pdf [OIG Report]. Indeed, the
former BOP Director and the former Attorney General have both
acknowledged that the Bureau employs solitary confinement in its facilities.
Id. at 1516.
The profound and lasting damage wrought by solitary confinement is
extensively documented. See Peter Scharff Smith, The Effects of Solitary
Confinement on Prison Inmates: A Brief History and Review of the Literature,
34 Crime & Just. 441, 475 (2006) ([R]esearch on effects of solitary
confinement has produced a massive body of data documenting serious
adverse health effects.). The OIG report recognized that confinement in
units like the SHU, even for short periods of time, can cause psychological
29
harm and significant adverse effects on inmates mental health, including
anxiety, depression, anger, cognitive disturbances, perceptual disorders,
obsessive thoughts, paranoia, and psychosissome of which may be long
lasting. OIG Report at 1 (citation omitted); see also Reassessing Solitary
Confinement: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution, Civil Rights,
and Human Rights of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. 75 (2012)
(statement of Prof. Craig Haney) ([T]he consequences of long-term
solitary confinement are truly extreme. Serious forms of mental illness can
result from these experiences.). The extreme isolation in the SHU causes
many individuals to come out of these units damaged and functionally
disabled. OIG Report at 26 (citation omitted); Supreme Court Fiscal Year
2016 Budget, C-SPAN (Mar. 23, 2015), http://www.c-span.org/video/?324970-
1/supreme-court-budget-fiscal-year-2016&live (Testimony of Anthony M.
Kennedy, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States) (Solitary
confinement literally drives men mad.). The BOPs own policy also
recognizes that an inmates mental health may deteriorate during restrictive
housing placement. OIG Report at 1 (quoting U.S. Dept of Justice, Bureau
of Prisons Program Statement No. 5310.16 (May 1, 2014)).
So grave are the effects of solitary confinement on detainees that the OIG
report quoted a psychologist at a BOP facility concluding that it is a form of
torture on some level. OIG Report at 21. This conclusion has been echoed by,
30
among others, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, who stated
that [c]onsidering the severe mental pain or suffering solitary confinement
may cause, it can amount to torture, particularly when used during pre-
trial detention, indefinitely or for a prolonged periodas it has been in Mr.
Guzmans case. Solitary Confinement Should be Banned in Most Cases, UN
Expert Says, United Nations News Centre (Oct. 18, 2011),
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=40097#.WXDzTYQrKHt.
The Mexican Governments Consent did not contemplate that Mr. Guzman
would be subject to long-term solitary confinement that is tantamount to
torture. Had Mexico been informed of this harsh confinement, it almost
certainly would not have agreed to Mr. Guzmans detention and prosecution
on the current charges in this District. Cf. Sadhbh Walshe, Britains Double
Standard on Extradition to US Prison Abuse, The Guardian (Nov. 8, 2012),
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/08/britain-double-
standard-extradition-us-prison-abuse (explaining that Britains Home
Secretary denied extradition of a man accused of hacking into the Pentagons
computer system, after concluding that, because the accused has Aspergers
syndrome, extraditing him to America where he would face up to 70 years of
isolation in a maximum security prison, would give rise to such a high risk of
him ending his life that the decision to extradite would be incompatible with
31
[his] human rights). Accordingly, the Consent Agreement should not be
given effect.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court should dismiss the Fourth Superseding
Indictment and grant any other relief that may be just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
_____ _______/s/________________
Michelle A. Gelernt
Michael K. Schneider
Edward S. Zas
Federal Defenders of New York, Inc.

One Pierrepont Plaza, 16th Floor
Brooklyn, New York 11201
(718) 330-1200
Counsel for Defendant

Joaquin Archivaldo Guzman Loera
32
Case 1:09-cr-00466-BMC-RLM Document 110-1 Filed 08/03/17 Page 1 of 73 PageID #: 1376
REDACTED
(Official Seal)
UNITED MEXICAN STATES

Office of the Secretary (Ministry) of Foreign Affairs
Agreement issued by the Minister of Foreign Affairs concerning the request

presented by the Government of the United States of America to the Government of the
United Mexican States to grant its CONSENT TO THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE
OF SPECIALTY, so that Mr. JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA may be tried in that country
for an additional prosecution to those for which he was extradited, whose content is as
follows:
- FACTS.
- LEGAL FOUNDATIONS
A. JURISDICTION.
B. REQUEST PRESENTED.
C. INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENT.
D. OPINION OF THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
E. ANALYSIS OF THE REQUEST.
F. STUDY OF THE EQUIVALENCY OF THE REGULATION
G. ANALYSIS OF THE GROUNDS FOR DENIAL
H. ARTICLE 9 OF THE BILATERAL TREATY
I. FINAL CONCLUSION
- DETERMINING FACTORS.
Mexico City, January 19, 2017
(Stamp)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
U.S. EMBASSY
MEXICO CITY
JAN. 19 2017
RECEIVED
0000000464
REDACTED
AGREEMENT
H E A R I N G to reach an agreement concerning the request for CONSENT TO

THE EXCEPTION TO THE PRINCIPLE OF SPECIALTY, formulated by the
Government of the United States of America, so that Mr. JOAQUN GUZMN-LOERA,
alias Joaqun Guzmn Loera, alias Joaqun Archivaldo Guzmn Loera, alias Joaqun
Archivaldo Guzmn-Loera, alias Chappo Guzmn, alias Chapo Guzmn, alias
Chapo, alias El Chapo, alias El Arquitecto, alias El Architecto, alias Gilberto
Osuna, alias Max Aragn, alias Jos Luis Ramrez, alias El Rpido, alias Shorty,
alias El Seor, alias El Jefe, alias Nana, alias Ap, alias Pap, alias Inge, alias
El Viejo, alias El Primo, alias El Padrino, alias To, may be prosecuted for
additional crimes to those for which he was handed over in international extradition, and -----
WHEREAS
1. That through the Agreements dated May 20, 2016, the Government of the United
Mexican States GRANTED to the Government of the United States of America, the
international extradition of Mr. JOAQUN GUZMN-LOERA, to be tried for the
following Criminal Indictments:----------------------------------------------------------------
1) At the Federal District Court for the Southern District of California,

United States of America, to be tried within the Fourth Superseding
Indictment with Case Number CR 95-0973-B (also referred to with Case
Number 95-973-B, 95-0973-B and 95-1911M), which was presented on
August 23, 1996, in which he is accused in Charge One, consisting of
conspiracy to import and possess with the intent to distribute cocaine,
in violation of what is set forth in Sections 846 and 841 (a)(1) of Title 21
of the United States Code-----------------------------------------------------------
2) At the Federal District Court for the Western District of Texas, United
States of America, to be tried within the Indictment with Case Number EP-
12-CR-849-FM (also referred to with Case Numbers 3:12-cr-00849-FM,
EP12CR0849 and EP-12-CR-849-FM(1), presented on April 11, 2012, in
which he is accused of the following crimes:-------------------------------------
1) Charge One, conspiracy to direct the affairs of an enterprise through a

pattern of organized crime activities, in violation of what is stipulated
in Sections 1962(d) and 1962(c) of Title 18 of the United States Code;
2) Charge Two, conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute five

kilograms or more of cocaine and 1,000 kilograms or more of
marijuana, in violation of what is stipulated in Sections 846, 841(a)(1),
0000000465
REDACTED
841(b)(1)(A)(ii) and 841(b)(1)(A)(vii) of Title 21 of the United States

Code;
3) Charge Three, conspiracy to import five kilograms or more of cocaine

and 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana to the United States, in
violation of what is stipulated in Sections 963, 952(a), 960(a), 960
(b)(1)(B) and 960 (b)(1)(G) of Title 21 of the United States Code;
4) Charge Four, conspiracy to commit some crimes in money laundering

matters, in violation of what is stipulated in Sections 1956(h) and
1956(a)(2)(A) of Title 18 of the United States Code;
5) Charge Five, conspiracy to possess some firearms for the purpose of

promoting some drug trafficking related crimes, in violation of what is
stipulated in Sections 924(o) and 924 (c)(1) of Title 18 of the United
States Code;
6) Charge Eleven, homicide, from the moment he involved himself in a

continuing criminal enterprise, and drug trafficking crimes, in violation
of what is stipulated in Sections 848(e)(1)(A) of Title 21 of the United
States Code;
7) Charge Twelve, involving himself in a continuing criminal enterprise

to promote drug trafficking, in violation of what is stipulated in
Sections 848(b)(1) and 848(b)(2)(A) of Title 21 of the United States
Code.
2.- That against said findings, the cited extradited individual filed
actions for amparo proceedings with numbers 644/2016 and 645/ 2016, which
corresponded to be heard by the Thirteenth District Amparo Judge for
Criminal Matters in Mexico City, who on the date October 20, 2016, ruled
TO DENY the amparo and protection of the federal government to the
defendant.--------------------------------------------------------
3.- Against these judgments, the defendant presented two Appeals for
Review, which were heard by the Fifth Collegiate Panel Court for Criminal
Matters in Mexico City, which in a session on the 19th day of January, 2017,
ruled to CONFIRM the judgments being challenged and to DENY the
amparo and protection of the countrys judicial system, considering that
the Agreements issued by the Secretarys Office complied with the
constitutional and legal requirements for their issuance, and that the
defendants human rights were not violated in the extradition proceedings
which were brought against him.-------------------------------------------------------
0000000466
REDACTED
4.- As a consequence, the extradition Agreements dated May 20, 2016,

were affirmed, and today, the Republics Attorney Generals Office, handed
over Mr. JOAQUN GUZMN-LOERA to the requesting Government in
accordance with what is established in the applicable Bilateral Treaty and the
International Extradition Law.-------------------------------------------------------
5.- That through Diplomatic Note Number 17-0245 dated January 19,
2017, the Government of the United States of America, through its Embassy in
Mexico, presented to the Government of the United Mexican States, - Office
of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs the request for CONSENT TO THE
EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF SPECIALTY, in accordance with
Article 17, Number 1, c) of the Extradition Treaty between the United
Mexican States and the United States of America, so that Mr. JOAQUN
GUZMN-LOERA, may be prosecuted by the Federal District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, for crimes in addition to those for which he was
extradited, stating the following:------------------------------------
()
Excellency:
In accordance with what is set forth in the Extradition Treaty signed between the United
States of America and the United Mexican States, on May 4, 1978, I have the honor to
formally request from the Mexican Government its consent to try JOAQUN
ARCHIVALDO GUZMN-LOERA, alias El Chapo, alias El Rpido, alias Chapo Guzmn,
alias Shorty, alias El Seor, alias El Jefe, alias Nana, alias Ap, alias Pap, alias Inge, alias El
Viejo, for other charges different from those for which the Mexican government granted the
extradition, in accordance with Article 17(1)(c) of the Extradition Treaty.
The Mexican Government granted the extradition request from the United States against
GUZMN LOERA, through the Agreement dated May 20, 2016, for the purpose of trying
him in the Federal District Court for the Central (sic) District of California, for the charge of
conspiracy to import and possess with the intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of what is
stipulated in Sections 846 and 841 (a)(1) of Title 21 of the United States Code.
In the same manner, through the Agreement dated May 20, 2016, the Mexican Government
granted the request for extradition to the United States against GUZMN LOERA for the
purpose of trying him in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Texas, for the
following charges: conspiracy to direct the affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of
organized crime activities, in violation of what is stipulated in Sections 1962(d) and 1962(c)
of Title 18 of the United States Code; of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute
five kilograms or more of cocaine and 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation of
what is stipulated in Sections 846, 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(ii) and 841 (b)(1)(A)(vii) of Title
21 of the United States Code; of conspiracy to import five kilograms or more of cocaine and
4
0000000467
REDACTED
1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana to the United States, in violation of what is stipulated
in Sections 963, 952(a), 960(a), 960 (b)(1)(B) and 960 (b)(1)(G) of Title 21 of the United
States Code; of conspiracy to commit some crimes in money laundering matters, in violation
of what is stipulated in Sections 1956(h) and 1956(a)(2)(A) of Title 18 of the United States
Code; of conspiracy to possess some firearms for the purpose of promoting some drug
trafficking related crimes, in violation of what is Stipulated in Sections 924 (o) and 924
(c)(1) of Title 18 of the United States Code; homicide, from the moment he involved himself
in a continuing criminal enterprise, and drug-trafficking crime activities, in violation of what
is stipulated in Sections 848(e)(1)(A) of Title 21 of the United States Code; of involving
himself in a continuing criminal enterprise in violation of what is stipulated in Sections
848(b)(1) and 848(b)(2)(A) of Title 21 of the United States Code.
On January 19, 2017, the Mexican Government handed GUZMN LOERA over
to the United States Government. Currently, GUZMN LOERA is imprisoned
under the custody of the United States law enforcement authorities, for the
Charges for which the extradition was granted. As is explained in detail below, an
additional pending case exists against GUZMN LOERA in the Federal District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, which arose from an investigation of
GUZMN LOERAS drug trafficking activities. In accordance with Article 17
(1)(c) of the Extradition Treaty, the United States in the most respectful way
requests that now the Mexican Government authorize the United States to proceed
with this trial.
On May 11, 2016, a Grand Jury presiding in the Eastern District of New York
issued and presented a Fourth Superseding Indictment against GUZMN LOERA
within Case Number 09-466 (SLT) (S-4), accusing him of the following crimes:
(1) in Charge One, having been involved in a continuing criminal enterprise, in

violation of what is stipulated in Sections 848(a), 848(b), 848(c) and 848(e)(1)(A)
of Title 21 of the United States Code;
(2) in Charge Two, conspiracy to manufacture and distribute one or more

controlled substances to wit: five kilograms or more of cocaine, one kilogram or
more of heroin, 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and a thousand
kilograms or more of marijuana, knowingly and with the intention that said
controlled substances were going to be illegally imported to the United States
from a location abroad, in violation of what is stipulated in Sections 963, 959(a),
960 (a)(3), 960(b)(1)(A), 960(b)(1(A), 960(B)(1)(B)(ii) and 960(b)(1)(G) and 960
(B)(1)(H) of Title 21 of the United States Code;
(3) in Charge Three, conspiracy to import a controlled substance to the United

States, to wit: five kilograms or more of cocaine knowingly and with the intention
that said controlled substance was going to be illegally imported to the United
States from a location abroad, in violation of what is stipulated in Sections 963,
959(a), 960(a)(1), and 960(b)(1)(B)(ii) of Title 21 of the United States Code;
0000000468
REDACTED
(4) in Charge Four, conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to
distribute a controlled substance: to wit, five kilograms or more of cocaine, in
violation of what is stipulated in Sections 846, 841(a) and 841(b)(1)(A)(ii)(II) of
Title 21 of the United States Code;
(5 to 15) in Charges Five to Fifteen, international distribution of a controlled

substance, to wit: five kilograms or more of cocaine having the intention and
knowing that said substance was going to be illegally imported to the United
States, in violation of what is stipulated in Sections 959(a), 959(c), 960(a)(3) and
960(b)(1)(B)(ii) of Title 21 of the United States Code;
(16) in Charge Sixteen, of carrying, brandishing and discharging one or more

firearms, one of which was a machine gun, during and related to one or more drug
trafficking crimes, to wit, the accusations in Charges from One to Fifteen, in
violation to what is stipulated in Sections 924(c)(1)(A)(i), 924 (c)(1)(A)(ii), 924
(c)(1)(A)(iii) and 924(c)(1)(B)(ii) of Title 18 of the United States Code;
(17) in Charge Seventeen conspiracy to launder United States currency, knowing

that said United States currency constituted the profits from drug trafficking
through: (a) the transfer and the delivery of drug trafficking profits with the
intention of promoting the continuity of drug trafficking and to hide and disguise
the nature, the location, the origin and the ownership of the profits from the drug
sales, and (b) the transport, transmission and transfer of some monetary
instruments and funds from the United States to Mexico and Colombia, with the
intention to promote the continuity of drug trafficking and to disguise the nature,
the location, the source and the ownership of the profits from the drug sales, in
violation of what is stipulated in Sections 1956 (h), 1956(a)(1)(A)(i),
1956(a)(1)(B), 1956(a)(2)(A) and 1956(a)(2)(B) of Title 18 of the United States
Code.
Marijuana and heroin are Category I controlled substances and cocaine and
methamphetamine are Category II controlled substances, according to Section
812, of Title 21 of the United States Code.
Please note that in accordance with the regulations in the Federal District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, the signature of the Foreperson of the Grand Jury
was redacted in the Fourth Superseding Indictment for security reasons. The redaction
of the Forepersons signature does not affect the validity of the Fourth Superseding
Indictment.
Based on the Charges included in the Fourth Superseding Indictment, the Federal
District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued an arrest warrant against
GUZMN LOERA on May 11, 2016. Said order is still current and enforceable to
0000000469
REDACTED
effect the arrest of GUZMN LOERA for the purpose of trying him for the crimes of
which he is accused in the Fourth Superseding Indictment. While the arrest warrant
does not mention each Charge contained in the Fourth Superseding Indictment, the
warrant continues to be valid to carry out GUZMN LOERAS arrest for the purpose
of trying him for each crime of which he is accused in the Fourth Superseding
Indictment.
The facts which establish probable cause to believe that, as leader of the Sinaloa
Cartel, GUZMN LOERA continuous and systematically involved himself in drug
trafficking and money laundering activities, and supervised the activities of thousands
of members of the Sinaloa Cartel. Together with the present Diplomatic Note and in
support of the United States request for authorization to try GUZMN LOERA for
the accusations charged in the Fourth Superseding Indictment, the original sworn
statements o Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern
District of New York, and of DEA Special Agent are included. In
the sworn statement of the Assistant United States Attorney
describes in detail the charges contained in the Fourth Superseding Indictment and the
precise evidentiary elements that the United States Government must demonstrate for
the purpose of establishing GUZMAN LOERAS guilt for each crime. In the sworn
statement of Special Agent describes in detail the prior history of the
investigation of GUZMN LOERAS criminal enterprise and the specific facts and
evidence which led to the presentation of the Fourth Superseding Indictment. At the
same time, and included in support of this request are the sworn statements of some
individuals who have personal and first-hand knowledge of GUZMN LOERAS
criminal activities.
JOAQUN ARCHIVALDO GUZMN-LOERA is a Mexican citizen. He was born

on April 4, 1957 in Mexico. He is of Hispanic origin, measures 1,67 meters
approximately, and weighs around 90 kilograms. He has brown hair and brown eyes.
To involve oneself in a continuing criminal enterprise is an extraditable crime, in

accordance with Article 2(3) of the Treaty. Drug trafficking crimes are extraditable
crimes, in accordance with Article 2(1) of the Treaty and Clause 14 of its Appendix.
Crimes concerning the subject of fire arms are extraditable crimes, in accordance with
Article 2(1) of the Treaty and Clause 19 of its Appendix. Money laundering crimes
are extraditable crimes, in accordance with Article 2(1) of the Treaty and Clause 12 of
its Appendix; alternatively, they are extraditable crimes, in accordance with Article
2(3) of the Treaty. Conspiracy to commit an extraditable crime is an extraditable
crime, in accordance with Article 2(4)(a) of the Treaty.
In accordance with Article 8 of the Extradition Treaty, the United States Government
assures the Mexican Government that a death sentence will not be imposed, and if it
were, it will not be carried out if the Mexican Government authorizes the United
States Government to try GUZMN LOERA, for the crimes charged in the Fourth
Superseding Indictment.
7
0000000470
REDACTED
I have the honor of sending to you, together with this Diplomatic Note, the
documentation and the translations which the Treaty requires must accompany the
request for consent from the United States to proceed with the trial against GUZMN
LOERA for the Fourth Superseding Indictment.
The United States Government, with all due respect, requests that the Mexican
Government in an urgent and extraordinary manner review this request for Consent to
the Exception to the Rule of Specialty, since GUZMN LOERA is currently present
under custody to be tried for the crimes for which his extradition was granted
previously.
Receive, Excellency, the assurances of my deepest regard.
Deputy Chief of the Embassy

Attachment: Documents which accompany this current request and their translation
into Spanish.
()
6.- That through Official Letter ASJ-02307 dated January 19, 2017, this Office
of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs urgently requests the Republics Attorney
Generals Office, within the scope of its powers and faculties, to issue the opinion it
considers to have merit within the law concerning the request for CONSENT TO
THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF SPECIALTY formulated by the
Government of the United States of America.-------------------------------------------------
7.- That through Official Letter SJA/0031/2017, January 19, 2017, the
Republics Attorney Generals Office issued its opinion concerning the request
formulated by the Government of the United States of America in the sense that said
Federal Prosecutors Office believes that, in its view, the Mexican Government
should GRANT its authorization to the Exception to the Rule of Specialty
mentioned, so that Mr. JOAQUN GUZMN-LOERA alias Joaqun Guzmn
Loera, alias Joaqun Archivaldo Guzmn Loera, alias Joaqun Archivaldo
Guzmn-Loera, alias Chappo Guzmn, alias Chapo Guzmn, alias Chapo,
alias El Chapo, alias El Arquitecto, alias El Architecto, alias Gilberto Osuna,
alias Max Aragn, alias Jos Luis Ramrez, alias El Rpido, alias Shorty,
alias El Seor, alias El Jefe, alias Nana, alias Ap, alias Pap, alias Inge,
alias El Viejo, alias El Primo, alias El Padrino, alias To, may be prosecuted
for different crimes than those for which his extradition was granted through the
Agreements issued on May 20, 2016-----------------------------------------------------------
Given the above, and-----------------------------------
0000000471
REDACTED
L E G A L C O N C L U S I O N S:
A. JURISDICTION.
I. That the Minister of Foreign Affairs has jurisdiction to hear and agree in this
present matter in terms of what is stipulated in Articles 119, Third Paragraph of
the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States; 17 Number 1, Paragraph
c) of the Extradition Treaty between the Government of the United Mexican
States and the Government of the United States of America; 28, Sections XI and
XII of the Federal Public Administration Act and 7, Paragraph X of the Internal
Rules of the Office of the Secretary (Ministry) of Foreign Affairs. -------------------
B. REQUEST PRESENTED
II. That the Government of the United States of America through its Embassy in
Mexico has requested from the United Mexican States Government its CONSENT TO
THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF SPECIALTY, so that Mr. JOAQUN
GUZMN-LOERA alias Joaqun Guzmn Loera, alias Joaqun Archivaldo Guzmn
Loera, alias Joaqun Archivaldo Guzmn-Loera, alias Chappo Guzmn, alias
Chapo Guzmn, alias Chapo, alias El Chapo, alias El Arquitecto, alias El
Architecto, alias Gilberto Osuna, alias Max Aragn, alias Jos Luis Ramrez,
alias El Rpido, alias Shorty, alias El Seor, alias El Jefe, alias Nana, alias
Ap, alias Pap, alias Inge, alias El Viejo, alias El Primo, alias El Padrino,
alias To, may be prosecuted at the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, United States of America, within the Fourth Superseding Indictment, Case
Number 09-CR-466(SLT)(S-4) presented on May 11, 2016, for different crimes than
those for which his international extradition was granted.
(1) in Charge One, having been involved in a continuing criminal
enterprise, in violation of what is stipulated in Sections 848(a), 848(b),
848(c) and 848(e)(1)(A) of Title 21 of the United States Code;---------

controlled substances, to wit: five or more kilograms of cocaine, one
kilogram or more of heroin. 500 grams or more of methamphetamines and
one thousand kilograms or more of marijuana, knowingly and with the
intention that said controlled substances were going to be illegally
imported to the United States from a location abroad, in violation of what
is stipulated in Sections 963, 959(a), 960 (b)(1)(A), 960(b)(1)(B)(ii), 960
(b)(1)(G) and 960 (b)(1)(H) of Title 21 of the United States Code;--------
(3) in Charge Three, conspiracy to import a controlled substance to the

United States, to wit: five kilograms of cocaine knowingly and with the
intention that said controlled substance would be illegally imported to the
0000000472
Case 1:09-cr-00466-BMC-RLM Document 110-1 Filed 08/03/17 Page 10 of 73 PageID #:
REDACTED
1385
United States from a location abroad, in violation of what is stipulated in

Sections 963, 959(a), 960(a)(1) and 960(b)(1)(B)(ii) of Title 21 of the
United States Code;------------------------------------------------------------------
distribute a controlled substance: to wit, five kilograms or more of cocaine,
in violation of what is stipulated in Sections 846 and 841(b)(1)(A)(ii)(II) of
Title 21 of the United States Code;------------------------------------------------
(5 to 15) in Charges Five to Fifteen, international distribution of a

controlled substance, to wit: five kilograms or more of cocaine having the
intention and knowing that said substance was going to be illegally
imported to the United States, in violation of what is stipulated in Sections
959(a), 959(c), 960(a)(3) and 960(b)(1)(B)(ii) of Title 21 of the United
States Code;---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(16) in Charge Sixteen, of carrying, brandishing and discharging one or

more firearms, one of which was a machine gun, during and related to one
or more drug trafficking crimes, to wit: the accusations in the crimes in
Charges One to Fifteen, in violation to what is stipulated in Sections
924(c)(1)(A)(i), 924 (c)(1)(A)(ii), 924 (c)(1)(A)(iii) and 924 (c)(1)(B)(ii)
of Title 18 of the United States Code;---------------------------------------------
(17) in Charge Seventeen, conspiracy to launder United States currency,

knowing that said United States currency constituted the profits from
trafficking drugs through: (a) the transfer and the delivery of drug
trafficking profits with the intention to promote the continuance of drug
trafficking and to hide and disguise the nature, the location, the origin and
the ownership of the profits from the drug sales; and (b) the transport,
transmission and transfer of some monetary instruments and funds from
the United States to Mexico and Colombia, with the intent to promote the
carrying out of drug trafficking and to disguise the nature, the location, the
source and the ownership of the profits from the drug sales, in violation of
what is stipulated in Sections 1956(h), 1956(a)(1)(A)(i), 1956(a)(1)(B),
1956(a)(2)(A) and 1956(a)(2)(B) of Title 18 of the United States Code;-----
methamphetamines are Category II controlled substances, according to
Section 812, of Title 21 of the United States Code.------------------------------
C. INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENT
10
0000000473
REDACTED
1386
III. That said extradition request is based on Article 17, Number 1, Paragraph c) of
the Extradition Treaty between the United Mexican States and the United States of America,
in whose applicable part it literally states:--------------------------------------------------------------
Article 17.
1.- A person extradited in accordance with this present Treaty shall not be
arrested, tried or punished in the territory of the Requesting Party for a
different crime than the one for which the Extradition was granted, nor
shall he be extradited by said Party to a third Government unless:
a) The person has abandoned the Requesting Partys territory after his/her
extradition and has voluntarily returned to it;
b) Has not abandoned the territory of the Requesting Party within 60 days
following the date in which he/she has been free to do so; or
c) The Party to whom the Request is made has given its consent so
that the person may be arrested, tried, punished or extradited to a
third Government for a different crime than the one for which the
Extradition was granted.
Following that reasoning, in Article 1 of the Extradition Treaty between the United Mexican
States and the United States of America, the agreement of both countries was expressed to
cooperate closely in the fight against crime and to mutually help each other for that purpose,
legal cooperation in matters subject to the Provisions of this Treaty and greater assistance
concerning the matter of handing over of individuals concerning whom the authorities with
jurisdiction in the Requesting Party have commenced a legal proceeding, and in whose
applicable part it literally states:-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 1.
1. The Contracting Parties commit themselves to mutually hand over

to each other, subject to the Provisions in this Treaty, the
individuals concerning whom the authorities with jurisdiction in the
Requesting Party have initiated a criminal proceeding, or who
have been declared responsible for a crime or who are being
requested by said authorities to fulfill a term of imprisonment
legally imposed, for a crime committed within the territory of the
Requesting Party.
11
0000000474
REDACTED
1387
D. OPINION OF THE REPUBLICS ATTORNEY GENERAL.
IV.Through Official Communication Number SJAI/ 0031/ 2017 dated January

19, 2017, in which the Republics Attorney Generals Office, requested the opinion of the
General Director of International Procedures at this Government Entity, concerning the
request formulated by the Government of the United States of America, in the sense that said
Federal Prosecutors Office considers that, in its opinion, the Mexican Government should
GRANT its authorization to the Exception to the Rule of Specialty mentioned, in order that
Mr. JOAQUN GUZMN- LOERA, alias Joaqun Guzmn Loera, alias Joaqun
Archivaldo Guzmn Loera, alias Joaqun Archivaldo Guzmn-Loera, alias Chappo
Guzmn, alias Chapo Guzmn, alias Chapo, alias El Chapo, alias El Arquitecto,
alias El Architecto, alias Gilberto Osuna, alias Max Aragn, alias Jos Luis
Ramrez, alias El Rpido, alias Shorty, alias El Seor, alias El Jefe, alias Nana,
alias Ap, alias Pap, alias Inge, alias El Viejo, alias El Primo, alias El Padrino,
alias To, may be prosecuted for different crimes than those for which his Extradition was
granted through Agreements issued on May 20, 2016, indicating what it literally states:-------
In response to your Official Communication ASJ-2307, dated January 19, 2017, in

which you requested from the General Department of International Procedures at
this Government Entity, its opinion concerning the request for Consent to the
Exception to the Rule of Specialty formulated by the Government of the United
States of America to the United Mexican States to try JOAQUN GUZMN-
LOERA, (a) JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA, (a)JOAQUN ARCHIVALDO
GUZMN-LOERA, (a) chappo guzmn, (A) CHAPO GUZMN, (a)
CHAPO, (a) EL CHAPO, (a) EL ARCHITECTO, (a) EL ARQUITECTO,
(a) GILBERTO OSUNA, (a) ,AX ARAGN, (a) SHORTY, (a) JOS
LUIS RAMREZ, (a) EL RPIDO, (A) el seor, (A) EL JEFE, (a)
NANA, (a) AP, (a) PAP, (a) INGE, (a) EL VIEJO, (a) EL
PRIMO, (a) EL PADRINO, (a) TO, for additional crimes than those for
which his extradition was granted: I allow myself to state to you that in the
opinion of this Republics Office of the Attorney General, it is appropriate to grant
consent to try JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA due to the following considerations:
JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA was handed over in extradition to the

Government of the United States of America on January 19, 2017 to be
prosecuted for the following charges:
a) At the Federal District Court for the Southern District of California, in

the Fourth Superseding Indictment with Case Number CR 95-0973-B (also
referred to with Case Number 95-973-B, 95-0973-B and 95-1911M),
which was presented on August 23, 1996, for the charge of conspiracy to
import and possess with the intent to distribute cocaine.
12
0000000475
REDACTED
1388
b) At the Federal District Court for the Western District of Texas, in the
Indictment with Case Number EP-12-CR-849 FM (also referred to with
Case Number 3:12-cr-00849-FM, EP 12CR0839 and EP-12-CR-849-
FM(1), presented on April 11, 2012, for charges of conspiracy to direct the
affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of organized crime; conspiracy to
possess with the intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana; conspiracy to
import cocaine and marijuana; conspiracy to commit money laundering
crimes; conspiracy to possess fire arms; homicide at the time of involving
himself in a continuing criminal enterprise and drug trafficking.
Now, the Government of the United States of America, through a Diplomatic

Note presented to the Government of the United Mexican States, formulated a
REQUEST FOR CONSENT TO THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF
SPECIALTY, in accordance with Article 17, Number 1, Paragraph c) of the
Extradition Treaty between the United Mexican States and the United States of
America, so that the extradited party, Mr. JOAQUN GUZMN-LOERA,
may be prosecuted in an additional case at the Federal District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, in Case 09-466(SLT)(S-4) for charges of having
been involved in a continuing criminal enterprise; conspiracy to import a
controlled substance to the United States, to wit, cocaine, knowingly and with
the intention that said substance would be illegally imported to the United
States of America from a location abroad; conspiracy to import a controlled
substance to the United States, to wit, cocaine, knowingly, and with the
United States from a location abroad (sic repeated); conspiracy to distribute
and possess with the intent to distribute a controlled substance, to wit, cocaine;
international distribution of a controlled substance, to wit, cocaine, having the
intention and knowing that said substance was going to be illegally imported
to the United States; to carry, brandish and discharge one or more fire arms,
one of which was a machine gun, during and related to one or more drug
trafficking crimes; conspiracy to launder United States currency, knowing that
it constituted the profits from drug trafficking.
For these purposes, they make a presentation of the acts of which JOAQUN
GUZMN LOERA is being accused in the Superseding Indictment and they
attach copies of the corresponding evidentiary elements.
From reading said documents, in the opinion of the Office of the Republics
Attorney General, the trial of the extradited individual is considered viable, for
the charges contained in the Diplomatic Note and that were not facts known to
the Mexican Government in the formal international extradition requests
which motivated the requested individuals being handed over for extradition;
therefore making a comparative analysis of the conducts which established
the charges in the United States of America, and the conducts which constitute
13
0000000476
REDACTED
1389
crimes according to the Mexican Federal Criminal Legislation, it may be

observed that similarity exists in the crimes of:
a) Drug trafficking crimes as set forth in our Mexican legislation in Title Eight, Chapter
I, Articles 193, 194 Paragraphs I and II of the Federal Criminal Code are punishable
with a term of imprisonment from ten to twenty-five years.
Article 193.- Considered as narcotics are narcotics, psychotropics and remaining

substances or vegetables which are determined by the General Health Law,
International Conventions and Treaties which must be observed in Mexico and
those which are stated in the remaining applicable legal provisions concerning this
subject.
For the purposes of this chapter, conducts related to drugs, psychotropics and
remaining substances or vegetables which are set forth in Articles 237, 245,
Paragraphs I, II and III and 248 of the General Health Law which constitute a grave
problem for public health are punishable
Article 194.- A period of imprisonment from ten to twenty-five years and from one
hundred to five hundred days salares fine will be imposed on anyone who:
I. Produces, transports, traffics, commercializes, provides, even at no cost or

prescribes any of the narcotics named in the prior Article, without the corresponding
authorization referred to in the General Health Law.
For the purposes of this Paragraph, by producing, it means: manufacturing,

fabricating, creating, preparing or conditioning some narcotic, and for
commercializing: selling, purchasing, acquiring or transferring some narcotic.
By supplying it means the material transmission in a direct or indirect manner, for any
reason, of the possession of narcotics.
The business and supply of narcotics may be investigated, prosecuted and if

warranted, punished by the authorities with ordinary jurisdiction according to the
terms of the General Health Law, when the conditions in Article 474 of said
Regulation are fulfilled;
II, Introduces or removes from the country any of the narcotics included in the
preceding Article, although it were in an instantaneous manner or in transit
b) Organized Crimes as foreseen and punishable by Article 2 Paragraph I of the

Federal Law Against Organized Crime:
Article 2.- When three or more persons organize themselves in fact to

participate, in a permanent or repetitive way, in conducts which by themselves
14
0000000477
REDACTED
1390
or joined with others, have as their purpose or result to commit any or some of
the following crimes, they shall be punished for that fact alone, as members of
organized crime:
I. Terrorism, provided for in Articles 139 to 139 Ter, financing terrorism as

provided in Articles 139 Quater and 139 Quinquies and international terrorism as
provided for in Articles 148 Bis. to 148 Quater; drug trafficking as provided for in
Articles 194, 195, First Paragraph, and 196 Third; falsification, use of falsified
currency knowingly and altering currency, as provided for in Articles 234, 236
and 237; operations with resources which have an illegal origin as provided in
Article 400 bis; and in the question of Copyrights as provided for in Article 242
Bis, all from the Federal Criminal Code;
c) Operations with resources which have an illegal origin as provided for and
punished in Title Twenty-three, Chapter II, Article 400 bis of the Federal Criminal
Code, punishable with a term of five to fifteen years of imprisonment:
Article 400 bis. A term of five to fifteen years of imprisonment and from one
thousand to five thousand daily salaries fine will be imposed on anyone who,
alone or through an intermediate person participates in any of the following
conducts:
I. Acquires, sells, administers, stores, possesses, changes, converts, deposits,

withdraws, give or receives for any purpose, invests, assigns, transports or
transfers, within the national territory, from the national territory abroad or
the reverse, resources, rights or assets of any kind, when having knowledge
that they proceed from or represent the product of an illegal activity, or
II. Hides, conceals or tries to hide or conceal the nature, origin, location,
destination, movement, ownership or title to resources, rights or assets,
when having knowledge that they proceed from or represent the product of
an illegal activity.
For the purposes of this Chapter, it shall be understood that the product of
an illegal activity, are the resources, rights or assets of any kind, when
there are founded indications or certainty that they have their origin,
directly or indirectly, or represent the profits derived from the committing
of any crime and their legitimate origin cannot be accredited.
In the event the conducts provided for in this Chapter, in which the
services of institutions which form part of the financial system are used, in
order to prosecute criminally, a prior criminal complaint from Office of the
Secretary (Ministry) of the Treasury and Public Credit will be required.
15
0000000478
REDACTED
1391
When the Office of the Secretary (Ministry) of the Treasury and Public
Credit, in use of its oversight faculties, finds elements which allow it to
assume that one of the crimes referred to in this Chapter has been
committed, it should use the verification powers provided to it by law
concerning them, and file a complaint about the facts that probably may
constitute said illicit acts.
d. Conspiracy as provided for in Second Title Chapter IV:
Article 164.- Anyone who forms part of an association or gang of three or

more persons with the purpose of committing a crime, shall receive a term of
imprisonment from five to ten years and from one hundred to three hundred daily
salaries fine.
When the member of the association is or has been a public servant at any
police corporation, the punishment detailed in the preceding Paragraph will increase
by half, and in addition dismissal from the employment, position or public
commission will be imposed, and there will be a one to five years disqualification
from holding another position. If the member of the association belongs to the
Mexican Armed Forces in a position as retired, reserve, or active duty, the
punishment will increase also by half, and in addition the individual will be
definitively dismissed from the Armed Force to which he or she belongs and will
have a one to five years disqualification to hold a public office or commission;
e. Carrying firearms as provided for in Second Title First Chapter of the

Federal Law
Article 8.- The possession or carrying of the weapons prohibited by Law nor
those reserved for exclusive use of the Army, Navy and Armed Forces shall not be
permitted, except in those exceptional cases described in this Law.
Article 11.- The weapons, ammunition and materials for the exclusive use of
the Army, Navy and Air Force are the following:
a)- .357 caliber Magnum revolvers and those above the .38 Special.
b)- 9mm. pistols. Parabellum, Luger and similar pistols, the .38 Super and
Commando, and those with higher calibers.
c.- .223, 7 mm., 7.62 mm. rifles, muskets, carbines and .30 caliber carbines in
all its models.
d.- Pistols, carbines and rifles with a rapid fire system, submachine guns,
machine guns of all calibers.
e.- Shotguns with a barrel length inferior to 635 mm. (25), caliber above .12
(.729 or 18.5 mm.) and gas launchers, except those for industrial use.
16
0000000479
REDACTED
1392
f.- Ammunitions for the preceding weapons and cartridges with special
artifices such as tracers, incendiary, perforating or fumigating, gas expanders and
those loaded with posts above 00 (.84 cms.) in diameter for shotguns.
g.- Cannons, artillery pieces, mortars and combat vehicles with their additions,
accessories, projectiles and ammunitions.
h.- Rocket launchers, torpedoes, grenades, bombs, mines, depth chargers,
flame throwers and similar devices, as well as the apparatus, artifacts and machines to
launch them.
i.- Bayonets, sabers and spears.
j.- Ships, submarines, vessels and hydroplanes for naval warfare and their
armaments.
k.- War planes and their armament.
l)- War artifacts, gases and chemical substances with a strictly military use,
and the various uses devised by the Armed Forces.
In general, all the weapons, ammunition and materials exclusively to be used
for war.
The weapons for this purpose, with justification of their necessity, may be
authorized by the Office of the Secretary of National Defense, individually, or as a
corporation, to those who have jobs or positions in the Federation, the Federal
District, in the States or Cities, as well as foreign public servants in the cases referred
to in Articles 28 and 28 Bis. of this Law.
Article 83.- Whoever, without the corresponding permit, carries a weapon

which is for the exclusive use of the Army, Navy, or Air Forces shall be punished:
I. With 3 months to a year of imprisonment and from one to 10 daily salaries

as a fine, when the weapons are within Paragraph i) of Article 11 of this Law:
II. With three to ten years of imprisonment and from fifty to two hundred daily
salaries as a fine, when the weapons are within Paragraphs a) and b) of Article 11 of
this Law, and
III. With four to fifteen years of imprisonment and from one hundred to five
hundred daily salaries as a fine, when it is any of the other weapons included in
Article 11 of this Law.
In the event that two or more weapons are carried, the corresponding
punishment will increase by up to two thirds.
When three or more individuals, members of a group, carry weapons included

in Paragraph III of this present Article, the corresponding punishment for each one of
them will double.
Based on what has been described above, in Article 17, Number 1, Paragraph
c) of the Extradition Treaty between the United Mexican States and the United States
17
0000000480
REDACTED
1393
of America, bearing in mind that both legislations regulate and punish the conducts
detailed in the Diplomatic Note, and of which JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA is
accused, in the opinion of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic it is
viable to grant consent so that the United States Government may have the possibility
to try him for the Charges contained in the Fourth Superseding Indictment, Number
09-CR-466(SLT)(S-4)(also referred to as Case Number 09-466(SLT)(S-4). Finally,
we do not omit calling attention to the fact that the First Charge in the Fourth
Superseding Indictment (Involvement in a continuing criminal enterprise) is
punishable in the territory of the United States with the death penalty, or life in
prison. Never the less we have made note of the fact that the Government of the
United States of America, within that same Diplomatic Note, has provided guarantees
that the application of the death penalty will not occur, as foreseen in Article 8 of the
Extradition Treaty between the United Mexican States and the United States of
America.
To conclude, we make note of the fact that in this Request for Consent to the
Exception to the Rule of Specialty, it does not trigger any cause of impropriety for the
Extradition contained in Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the Extradition Treaty between the
United Mexican States and the United States of America.
E. ANALYSIS OF THE REQUEST.
V. That the Government of the United States of America states in its request for
CONSENT TO THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF SPECIALTY, that it has an
additional case against the extradited individual for crimes different from those for which his
international extradition was granted, at the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, United States of America, within the Fourth Superseding Indictment with Case
Number 09-CR-466(SLT)(S-4), presented on May 11, 2016. By virtue of this, this Office of
the Secretary of Foreign Affairs takes the following into account:---------------------------------
1.- That the request for CONSENT TO THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF
SPECIALTY was presented through the diplomatic channel, as well as the documentation
supporting its request, as is accredited with Diplomatic Note Number 17-0245, which the
Government of the United States of America, through its Embassy, sent to the Government of
Mexico.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.- That the requesting Government accompanied its request with a list of the acts for
which JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA is being charged, so that he may be prosecuted for
Charges different from those for which the International Extradition was granted, acts which
are contained in the sworn statement of Assistant United
States Attorney, at the United States Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of New York,
which was attached to its request for Consent.-----------------------
18
0000000481
REDACTED
1394
3.- That the requesting Government attached a certified copy of the Arrest Warrant
dated May 11, 2016, which was issued against Mr. JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA , for
charges different from those for which his international extradition was granted, at the
Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York, United States of America, within
the Fourth Superseding Indictment with Case Number 09-CR-466(SLT)(S-4), with its
corresponding translation into Spanish, issued by the Federal District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.------------------------------------------------------
4.- That the requesting Government attached the text of the legal provisions for the
crimes attributed to him; the legal provisions which determine the punishment corresponding
to the illegal acts and the text of the legal provisions pertinent to the statute of limitations in
accordance with the applicable laws in the Requesting Government.------------------------------
5.- That from the documentation provided JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA S

information and personal background can be inferred which allows for his complete
identification, consisting of photographs of the extradited individual, his half filiation and
fingerprints, the same which are found in the documentation duly certified by the Department
of Justice and by the Department of State from the Government of the United States of
America.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.- That the Government of the United States of America sent the following
probative elements as support for its request with which it accredits the fact that against
JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA there is an additional prosecution for crimes or charges
different from those for which his international extradition was granted, at the Federal
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, United States of America, within the
Fourth Superseding Indictment, with Case Number 09-CR-(SLT)(S-4), presented on May 11,
2016, which consist of the following:-------------------------------------
A.- The public documentary evidence containing the sworn statement given
before the United States District Court Judge in the Eastern District of New York, United
States of America, by Assistant United States Attorney at the
United States Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of New York .in which names the
crimes of which JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA is being accused, the Case being
investigated against Mr. JOAQUN GUZMN-LOERA, in that Federal Court, as well as
the presentation of an Arrest Warrant against him, the statement concerning the current status
within the statute of the applicable United States laws applicable to the Prosecution against
him and refers to the evidences in the Case.-----------------------------------------------------
B.- To provide evidence that the Government of the United States of America has
an additional Case against the extradited individual, the requesting Government attached a
certified copy of the Indictment with its corresponding translation into Spanish, in which it is
indicated that the members of the Grand Jury in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, did formally indict Mr. JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA for
the charges which were referenced in Legal Foundation II of this Resolution.--------------------
19
0000000482
REDACTED
1395
C.- A certified copy of the arrest warrant dated May 11, 2016, which was issued
against Mr. JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA, within the Fourth Superseding Indictment
with Case Number 09-CR-466(SLT)(S-4), presented on May 11, 2016, with its respective
translation into Spanish, issued by the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D.- The public documentary evidence consists of the statement sworn by

Special Agent for the United States DEA, before the United States District
Court Judge for the Eastern District of New York. In statement the Detective indicates
that was assigned to the investigation taking place in that District against Mr. JOAQUN
GUZMN-LOERA and his criminal organization, because is familiar with the methods
employed by drug traffickers in general, and drug trafficking organizations in particular, to
smuggle, store and distribute drugs and collect and launder the profits derived from the
drugs; at the same time knows the ways in which drug traffickers operate including the
methods they use to manufacture and distribute the drugs outside of the United States, the
methods and transportation routes that they use to import drugs to the United States, the
methods and transportation routes, including kidnapping and murder; the methods that they
use to distribute drugs within the United States; movement of funds; the use of
communication devices to facilitate drug trafficking, and the use of coded and encrypted
language in drug negotiations, which activities were probably carried out by JOAQUN
GUZMN LOERA, and therefore is familiar with the corresponding evidence material
which reviews and points out that in that country probable cause exists to believe that the
now extradited individual did commit the illegal acts with which he is charged, said acts
occurred during the decade of the 1980s until September, 2014. Therefore, attaches as
evidence D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4, D-5, D-6, D-7, D-8, D-9, D-10, D-11, D-12, and D-13, various
photographs in color corresponding to the cocaine seizures effected by law enforcement
authorities, as well as the laboratory reports which were issued as a result of said cocaine
seizures, from which it resulted that in effect the seized substance was cocaine. Also,
Attachment D-14 contains a photograph of Mr. JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA in which
several accomplices identified him as the person who was the leader of the criminal
organization, which therefore results in the intention to prosecute said individual.
20
0000000483
REDACTED
1396
21
0000000484
REDACTED
1397
22
0000000485
REDACTED
1398
23
0000000486
REDACTED
1399
24
0000000487
REDACTED
1400
Given the above, this Office of the Secretary (Ministry) of Foreign

Affairs considers that all the documentation previously described has the legal force to
25
0000000488
REDACTED
1401
consider it authentic, since it complies with the requirements set forth in Article 10, Numbers
5 and 6 of the applicable Bilateral Extradition Treaty, since it contains the Department of
State Seal and the corresponding signatures. Also, those documentary evidences were
legalized by the official authorized by this Office of the Secretary (Ministry) of Foreign
Affairs to handle United Mexican States matters in the location where they were issued, and
were sent through the diplomatic channel and translated into the Spanish language. Also, this
Office of the Secretary (Ministry) of Foreign Affairs considers the content in them to be true
and therefore, sufficient to demonstrate that a Criminal Proceeding against Mr. JOAQUN
GUZMN LOERA had commenced, since when this Office of the Secretary((Ministry) of
Foreign Affairs analyses them together and related to each other, sufficient evidence results
to demonstrate this cause of action. And they have sufficient legal force in accordance to
what is set forth in Articles 280, 281, 285, 288 and 289 of the Federal Code of Criminal
Procedures to demonstrate that the Government of the United States of America has an
additional Case against the extradited individual for crimes different from those for which his
international extradition was granted, at the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, United States of America, within the Fourth Superseding Indictment with Case
Number 09-CR-466(SLT)(S-4), presented May 11, 2016.-------------------------------------------
F. STUDY OF THE EQUIVALANCY OF THE REGULATION.
VI. So now it should be verified to see whether the conducts of which

JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA is accused, which originated the Charges for which he is
indicted in the United States of America at the Federal District Court for the Eastern District
of New York, United States of America, within the Fourth Superseding Indictment with Case
Number 09-CR-466(SLT)(S-4), are punishable in the Mexican legislation with a prison term
whose maximum cannot be less than one year, because Article 2, Number 1 of the
Extradition Treaty between the United Mexican States and the United States of America,
contains this requirement which literally states:------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE 2
Crimes Which Shall be Cause For Extradition
1.- Crimes which shall be cause for extradition, in accordance with this Treaty,
the intentional conducts which, fitting within any of the Paragraphs in the
Appendix, are punishable in accordance with the laws of both Contracting
Parties with a term of imprisonment whose maximum is not less than one
year.
From this transcription is may be observed that, independent of the name

which is given to a crime, in the legislations of the country to whom the request is made
(Mexico) and the country making the request, (United States of America), there exist
conducts or acts which one way or another produce harm or damages to society and therefore
they are defined as crimes both in the Government making the request and in the
Government to which the request is made. Given this, and for the purpose that fugitives from
justice do not benefit from impunity, the applicable Bilateral Extradition Treaty only requires
26
0000000489
REDACTED
1402
that the conducts committed be punishable according to the laws of the contracting parties,
with a term of imprisonment whose maximum not be less than one year and that they are
found in the Appendix in said international document, which is brought up to date in the
present case to consider whether it is proper that JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA be
prosecuted in the Fourth Superseding Indictment with Case Number 09-CR-466(SLT)(S-4),
presented on May 11, 2016, before the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, since the principle of equating the regulation is being brought up to date as is indicated
as follows:-
Given that in Charges One to Seventeen cited previously, which are

accusations against JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA, related to conspiracy, and of
involving himself in a continuing criminal enterprise, it may be seen from the request that
he is accused of directing, supervising and organizing the activities carried out by the
Sinaloa Cartel. Together with ISMAEL ZAMBADA GARCA, and others indicated in the
Indictment, who joined together to engage in trafficking cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine
and marijuana, money laundering, as well as carrying, brandishing and discharging one or
more firearms, one of which was a machine gun, during and related to one or more drug
trafficking crimes from 1980 until September 2014.--------------------------------------------------
With respect to this, concerning the conducts related to these Charges, the
latter were provided for and punishable in the Mexican Criminal Legislation in Article 164 of
the Criminal Code for the Federal District in matters of Ordinary Jurisdiction and for the
entire Republic in matters of Federal Jurisdiction, in effect at the time of the acts, which
provided for conspiracy, by stating that anyone who forms part of an association or gang
with three or more individuals for the purpose of committing a crime shall receive from one
to eight years of imprisonment. Said illegal act is a dangerous crime consisting in
constituting or participating in the voluntary union and with a character of relative
permanency, of three or more individuals for the purposes of committing illegal criminal
acts, which is incurred with the mere fact of being a member of the association. This precept
literally states as follows:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRIMINAL CODE FOR THE FEDERAL DISTRICT IN MATTERS OF

ORDINARY JURISDICTION AND FOR THE ENTIRE REPUBLIC IN MATTERS
OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION.
ARTICLE 164.- Anyone who forms part of an association or gang of three or more
persons with the purpose of committing a crime, shall receive a term of imprisonment
from one to eight years and from thirty to one hundred daily salaries fine.
When the member of the association is or has been a public servant at any
police corporation, the punishment detailed in the preceding Paragraph will increase
by half, and in addition dismissal from the employment, position or public
commission will be imposed, and there will be a one to five years disqualification
27
0000000490
REDACTED
1403
from holding another position. If the member of the association belongs to the
Mexican Armed Forces in a position as retired, reserve, or active duty, the
punishment will increase also by half, and in addition the individual will be
definitively dismissed from the Armed Force to which he or she belongs and will
have a one to five years disqualification to hold a public office or commission;
Article 197 Paragraph II of the Criminal Code for the Federal District
in Matters of Ordinary Jurisdiction, and for the entire Republic in Matters of Federal
Jurisdiction, defined a drug crime, with a term of imprisonment from ten to twenty-
five years when referring to what it literally indicated.----------------------------------
ARTICLE 197.- A term of imprisonment from ten to twenty-five years and

from one hundred to five hundred daily salaries fine shall be imposed on the
individual who, aside from the cases included in the preceding Articles:
I.- Plants, cultivates, harvests, produces, manufactures, fabricates, creates,

prepares, conditions, transports, sells, buys, purchases, disposes of or traffics,
commercializes, supplies even at no charge, or prescribes any of the vegetables or
substances named in Article 193, without the corresponding authorization as
referenced in the General Health Law;
II.- Introduces, or removes illegally from the country any of the vegetables or
substances included in Article 193, even if it were in an instantaneous fashion or in
transit, or participating in acts tending to carry out said acts;
The same sanctions will be imposed on the public servant who, in exercise of
his duties, or taking advantage of his position, covers up or permits the prior acts or
the acts which lead to them being carried out;
III. Provides resources, financial or of any kind, to collaborate in any manner

in the financing, to carry out any of the crimes referred to in this Chapter;
IV.-Engages in acts of publicity, propaganda, instigation or illegal assistance

to another individual so that he or she will consume any of the vegetables or
substances included in Article 193;
V.- Any individual who possesses any of the vegetables or substances named
in Article 193, without the corresponding authorization referred to in the General
Health Law, shall have imposed on him/her a term of imprisonment from seven to
twenty-five years and from one hundred to five hundred days of daily salaries fine.
In that sense, in Article 237 of the General Health Law, it is established

that narcotics are considered to be narcotics, psychotropics and remaining substances
or vegetables as determined by the General Health Law, the International
Conventions and International Treaties which must be observed in Mexico and those
28
0000000491
REDACTED
1404
which are named in the remaining applicable legal provisions in the matter. Conduct
related to narcotics, psychotropics and remaining psychotropics substances provided
for in Article 234, 235, 237 of the General Health Law, is punishable, due to the fact
that they constitute a grave problem for public health. These Articles literally state the
following--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE 193- Considered as narcotics are narcotics, psychotropics and

remaining substances or vegetables which are determined by the General Health
Law, International Agreements and Treaties which must be observed in Mexico
and those which are stated with the remaining applicable legal provisions
concerning this subject.
For the purposes of this Chapter, conducts related to narcotics, psychotropics and
remaining substances provided for in Article 237, 245, Paragraphs I, II, III, and
248 of the General Health Law, which constitute a grave public health problem.
The trier of fact, upon individualizing the punishment or the seizure measures
to be imposed for committing any of the crimes stated in this Chapter, shall bear in
mind, aside from what is established in Articles 51 and 52, the quantity and type of
narcotics in question, as well as the greater or lesser harm or endangerment of the
publics health and the personal conditions of the author or participant in the act or
recidivism if it were applicable.
Narcotics used in committing the crimes referred to in this Chapter shall be

placed at the disposal of the Federal Health Authority, which will proceed, in
accordance with the Federal Health Authoritys provisions or laws concerning the
matter, to take advantage for its legal usage or its destruction.
Insofar as the instruments, and vehicles used to commit the crimes considered
in this Chapter, as well as the objects and products of said crimes, whatever the nature
of said assets may be, they shall be at the disposal of what is provided in Articles 40
and 41 which shall apply. For this purpose, the Attorney Generals Office shall
determine, during the preliminary investigation, the corresponding securing and
proper destination in support of obtaining justice, or shall request it in the
prosecution, and will further the seizure of those assets involved or its product to be
used to obtain justice, or also, shall promote, if it were the case, the suspension and
removal of farming or other types of rights, before the authorities with jurisdiction
according to the applicable regulations.
GENERAL HEALTH LAW
Article 234.- For the purposes of this Law, considered as narcotics is:
()
COCAINE (Methylic ester of benzoilecgonina).
29
0000000492
REDACTED
1405
()
Article 235.- The planting, cultivation, harvesting, elaborating, preparing,

conditioning, acquiring, possession, commercializing, transport in any manner,
medical prescription, supply, employment, use, consumption and in general, all acts
related to narcotics or with any product which contains them is subject to:
I. The provisions in this Law and its Regulations;
II. The International Treaties and Conventions in which the United Mexican
States participates and which would have been signed in accordance with the
provisions in the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States;
III. The provisions issued by the General Health Council;
IV. What is established in other laws and regulations which are general in
nature which are related to this subject
V. The technical regulations issued by the Office of the Secretary (Ministry)

of Health.
.
VI. Related provisions issued by other offices under the Federal Executive
Branch in the area of their respective jurisdictions.
The acts referred to in this Article may only be carried out for medical and
scientific purposes, and require authorization from the Office of the Minister of
Health.
ARTICLE 236.- For the commercializing or trafficking of narcotics within

the national territory, the Office of the Secretary (Ministry) of Health shall establish
the requirements which should be satisfied and shall issue special permits for
purchase or transfer.
ARTICLE 237.- All of the acts mentioned in Article 235 of this Law,
concerning the following substances and vegetables: prepared opium, to be smoked,
diacetilmorphine or heroin, its salts or prepared products, cannabis sativa, Indica and
Americana or marijuana, papaver somniferun or sleep inducing, papaver bactreatum
and erythroxilon novogratense or cocaine, in any of its forms, derivatives or
preparations, are prohibited in the national territory.
It should be pointed out that the punishments established both in

Article 164, as well as in 197 of the Criminal Code for the Federal District in matters
of Ordinary Jurisdiction, and for the entire Republic in matters of Federal Ordinary
Jurisdiction, in effect during the time period when the acts were committed, shall be
30
0000000493
REDACTED
1406
punishable up to an additional fifty percent, in accordance with what is

established in Article 198, Paragraph V, of said legal regulation, which established
that when the agent were to participate in a criminal organization established
within or outside of the Republic to engage in any of the crimes which are
established in said Chapter of the Federal Criminal Code then in effect during the
time period when the acts were committed, as is the case in the request which is being
decided, since the individual being requested is accused of participating in a criminal
organization established within and outside of the Mexican Republic to traffic and
important cocaine to the United States of America, provision which literally states:-
Article 198. The punishments which, if it were the case, would be applicable
for crimes established in this Chapter, shall be increased by half in the following
cases:
-
V. When the agent participates in a criminal organization established within or
outside of the Republic to engage in any of the crimes indicated in this Chapter.
In this same vein, later on this conduct was punishable by the Mexican
Legislation in the first Paragraph of Article 196 bis of the cited Criminal Code for
the Federal District in Matters of Ordinary Jurisdiction and for the entire Republic in
Matters of Federal Jurisdiction, in effect at the time period in which the acts were
committed, with a term of imprisonment from twenty to forty years to the
individual who alone, through third parties or in the name of others, directs,
administers or supervises any type of criminal conspiracy, connected with diverse
Article 197, Paragraphs I, II, III and V which state that a term of imprisonment from
ten to twenty-five years shall be imposed, on the individual who commits those
conducts related to any of the narcotics named in Article 193, without the
corresponding authorization referenced in the General Health Law, which insofar as
this present request, is cocaine, which is a prohibited substance in accordance with
Articles 234, 237, and 245 of the General Health Law, since they establish the fact
that narcotics are considered to be those narcotics, psychotropics and remaining
substances or vegetables which the General Health Law, the Conventions and
International Treaties which must be observed in Mexico determine, and those which
are named in the remaining applicable legal provisions concerning this subject, and
the conducts which are related to narcotics, psychotropics, and remaining
psychotropic substances, in view of the fact that they constitute a grave public health
problem. Later these conducts were defined in Articles 194 and 195, Paragraph I of
the Federal Criminal Code. Said Articles literally state:-------------------------------------
Article 193- Narcotics are considered to be those narcotics, psychotropics

and remaining substances or vegetables which are determined in the General Health
Law, the International Conventions and Treaties which must be observed in Mexico,
and those which are named in the remaining legal provisions applicable to the matter.
31
0000000494
REDACTED
1407
For the purposes of this Chapter, conducts related to narcotics, psychotropics

and remaining substances provided for in Articles 237, 245, Paragraphs I, II and III
and 248 of the General Health Law which constitute a grave problem for public
health.
The trier of fact, upon individualizing the punishment or seizure measures to

impose for the commission of any crime provided for in this Chapter, shall keep in
mind, in addition to what is established in Articles 51 and 52, the quantity and type of
narcotics in question, as well as the greater or lesser harm or placement in danger of
the publics health, and the personal conditions of the perpetrator or participant in the
act or recidivism if it were the case.
The narcotics used in the commission of the crimes referred to in this Chapter,
shall be placed at the disposal of the Federal Sanitation Authority, which will proceed
in accordance with the provisions or laws about the matter to make either legal use of
them or to destroy them.
Insofar as instruments and vehicles used to commit the crimes considered in

this Chapter, as well as the objects and products from those crimes, whatever the
nature of said assets may be, what is provided in Articles 40 and 41 shall control. To
that end the Attorney Generals Office shall decide during the preliminary
investigation the corresponding seizure and the proper destination to support
obtaining justice, or shall request it in the prosecution, and shall ask that the seizure
of the assets in question or their product will be used to impart justice, or shall
propose, if it were the case, the suspension and deprivation of farming or other types
of rights, to the authorities who would have jurisdiction in accordance with the
applicable regulations.
Article 194.- A term of imprisonment between ten to twenty-five years and

individual who:
I. Produces, transports, traffics, commercializes, supplies, even at no cost or

prescribes any of the narcotics named in the preceding Article, without the
corresponding authorization referred to in the General Health Law;

II. Introduces into or removes from the country any of the narcotics included in the
preceding Article, even if were in an instantaneous manner or in transit.
If the introduction or removal referred to in this Paragraph should not come to

fruition, but from the acts involved it may be clearly inferred that such was the
32
0000000495
REDACTED
1408
actors purpose, the applicable punishment will be up to two thirds of the term of
punishment described in this Article.
III.- Provides financial or any other type of resources or collaborates, in any way with
the financing, supervision or promotion to make possible the commission of any of
the crimes referred to in this Chapter; and
IV. Engages in publicity or propaganda acts, so that any of the substances included in
the preceding Article will be consumed.
These same punishments established in this Article, and in addition, deprival

of any office or commission and disqualification to hold another one until after five
years, shall be imposed on any public servant who, carrying out his functions, or
taking advantage of his office, permits, authorizes, or tolerates any of the conducts
established in this Article.
Later on, in the January 4, 2000 reform, it was stated as follows
Article 194.- A Term of imprisonment between ten to twenty-five years and

individual who:

authorization referred to in the General Health Law;

preceding Article, even if were in an instantaneous manner or in transit.
If the introduction or removal referred to in this Paragraph should not come to

fruition, but from the acts involved it may be clearly inferred that such was the actors
purpose, the applicable punishment will be up to two thirds of the term of the
punishment described in this Article.
33
0000000496
REDACTED
1409
These same punishments established in this Article, and in addition, deprival

of any office or commission and disqualification to hold another one until after five
years, shall be imposed on any public servant who, carrying out his functions, or
taking advantage of his office, permits, authorizes, or tolerates any of the conducts
established in this Article.
ARTICLE 195. Five to fifteen years term of imprisonment and from one
hundred to three hundred daily salaries fine shall be imposed on the individual who
possesses any of the narcotics named in Article 193, without the corresponding
authorization referred to in the General Health Law, as long as and when said
possession be with the purpose to carry out any of the conducts provided for in
Article 194.
An individual shall not be prosecuted, not being a drug addict, who is found to
be in possession of any of the narcotics established in Article 193, just one time, and
in an amount that permits the assumption that it would be for his /her personal use.
A prosecution shall not be brought for simple possession of

medications, established within the narcotics referred to in Article 193, whose
sale to the public is subject to special requirements for its purchase, when due
to the nature and the quantity of said medications they may be necessary for
the treatment of the individual who possesses them or other individuals subject
to the custody or assistance of the individual who has them in his/her
possession.
ARTICLE 237.- All of the acts mentioned in Article 235 of this Law,
The same prohibitions may be established by the Office of the Secretary

(Ministry) of Health for other substances named in Article 234 of this Law, when it is
considered that they may be substituted for therapeutic purposes by other products
which, in its judgment, do not cause dependency.
Article 234.- For the purposes of this Law, considered as narcotics:
COCAINE (Methylic ester of benzoilecgonina)
34
0000000497
REDACTED
1410


II. The international Treaties and Conventions in which the United Mexican
IV. What is established in other Laws and regulations general in nature
concerning this subject;
V. Repealed.
The acts referred to in this Article may only be engaged in for medical and
Health.
Finally, said conducts are provided for and punishable in Article 2, Paragraph I
of the Federal Law Against Organized Crime, related to Article 4, Paragraph I, a) and
Paragraph II, a) of the cited legal regulation, are punishable with a term of between
twenty to forty years in prison, for whoever, being a member of organized crime,
has administrative, command or supervisory functions, concerning organized crime
and commits drug trafficking crimes, and from 8 to 16 years in prison when it
involves the crime of operations with resources of illegal origin. Below are listed
the provisions in the Federal Law Against Organized Crime.
Article 2.
When three or more persons agree to organize themselves or do organize

themselves to participate, in a permanent or repetitive way, in conducts which by
themselves or joined with others, have as their purpose or result to commit any or
some of the following crimes, they shall be punished for that fact alone, as members
of organized crime:
I. Terrorism, provided for in Article 139, First Paragraph: drug trafficking, as

provided for in Articles 194 and 195, First Paragraph, falsification or altering of
currency, as provided in Articles 234, 236 and 237; operations with resources of
illegal origin as provided in Article 400 bis., all in the Federal Criminal Code;
Article 4.
35
0000000498
REDACTED
1411
Without prejudice to the punishments established for the crime or crimes

which may be committed, a member of organized crime shall have the following
punishments applied:
I. In the cases of drug trafficking crimes referred to in this Paragraph I of

Article 2 in this Law:
a) To whoever has the roles of the administration, direction or supervision,

insofar as organized crime, from twenty to forty years term of imprisonment and
from five hundred to twenty-five thousand daily salaries fine, or
b) To whosoever does not have the preceding roles, from ten to twenty years
of imprisonment, and from two hundred and fifty to twelve thousand five hundred
daily salaries fine.
II. For the remaining crimes referred to in Article 2 of this Law:
a) To whoever has the functions for administration, direction or supervision,

from eight to sixteen years of imprisonment and five hundred to twenty-five
thousand daily salaries fine, or
b) To whoever does not have the preceding functions, from four to eight years
of imprisonment and from two hundred and fifty to twelve thousand five hundred
days of daily salaries fine.
()
In the same manner, insofar as charges related to drug trafficking crimes in its
modality of importing cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana, which are
accusations against JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA, these conducts are also punishable by
the Mexican Legislation in Article 194, Paragraph II (introduces or removes from the
country) from the Federal Criminal Code, in effect during the period of time in which the
acts were committed, since it establishes that a term of imprisonment from ten to twenty-
five years shall be imposed on the individual who imports any of the narcotics named in
Article 193 of said legal regulation; which are prohibited substances in accordance with
Article 237 of the General Health Law, since this last Article establishes that narcotics are
considered to be narcotics, psychotropics and remaining substances or vegetables
determined by the General Health Law, the International Conventions and Treaties which
must be observed in Mexico, and those named in the remaining applicable legal provisions
in the matter, and the conducts related to narcotics, psychotropics and remaining
psychotropic substances, as provided in Articles 234, 235, 237 and 245 of the General
Health Law are punishable because they constitute a grave public health problem. Said
Numbers literally state:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36
0000000499
REDACTED
1412
FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE
TITLE SEVEN
Drug Trafficking Crimes
CHAPTER I
Concerning the production, possession, trafficking, proselytism and other acts
in the matter of narcotics.
Article 193- Narcotics are considered to be those narcotics, psychotropics and

remaining substances or vegetables which are determined in the General Health Law,
the International Conventions and Treaties which must be observed in Mexico, and
those which are named in the remaining legal provisions applicable to the matter.
For the purposes of this Chapter, conducts related to narcotics, psychotropics

and remaining substances provided for in Articles 237, 245, Paragraphs I, II and III
and 248 of the General Health Law which constitute a grave problem for public
health.
The trier of fact, upon individualizing the punishment or seizure measures to

impose for the commission of any crime provided for in this Chapter, shall keep in
mind, in addition to what is established in Articles 51 and 52, the quantity and type of
narcotics in question, as well as the greater or lesser harm or placement in danger of
the publics health and the personal conditions of the perpetrator or participant in the
act or recidivism if it were the case.
The narcotics used in the commission of the crimes referred to in this Chapter,
shall be placed at the disposal of the Federal Sanitation Authority, which will proceed
in accordance with the provisions or laws about the matter to make either legal use of
them or to destroy them.
Insofar as instruments and vehicles used to commit the crimes considered in

this Chapter, as well as the objects and products from those crimes, whatever the
nature of said assets may be, what is provided in Articles 40 and 41 shall control. To
that end the Attorney Generals Office shall decide during the preliminary
investigation the corresponding seizure and the proper destination to support the
obtention of justice, or shall request it in the prosecution, and shall ask that the
seizure of the assets in question or their product will be used to impart justice, or shall
propose, if it were the case, the suspension and deprivation of farming or other types
of rights, to the authorities who would have jurisdiction in accordance with the
applicable regulations.
37
0000000500
REDACTED
1413

individual who:

prescribes any of the narcotics named in the preceding Article, without the
corresponding authorization referred to in the General Health Law;

By supplying it means the material transmission in a direct or indirect manner, for

any reason, of the possession of narcotics. The commercializing and supply of
narcotics may be investigated, prosecuted and where applicable punished by the
ordinary jurisdiction authorities according to the in the terms under the General
Health Law, when the threshold is reached for the circumstances provided in
Article 474 of said Code.
preceding Article, even if were in an instantaneous manner or in transit. If the
introduction or removal referred to in this Paragraph should not take place, but from
the actions carried out it may be clearly inferred that such was the actors purpose, the
applicable punishment shall be up to two thirds of what is provided for in this present
Article.
GENERAL HEALTH LAW
CHAPTER V
Narcotics
.
()
COCAINE (Methylic ester of benzoilecgonina).
()
38
0000000501
REDACTED
1414


IV. What is established in other laws and regulations which are of a general
nature dealing with the matter.
V. Repealed.
Branch in the area of their respective jurisdictions. The acts referred to in this Article
may only be engaged in for medical and scientific purposes, and require authorization
from the Office of the Minister of Health.
Article 237.- All of the acts mentioned in Article 235 of this Law,
The same prohibitions may be established by the Office of the Secretary of

Health for other substances named in Article 234 of this Law, when it is considered
that they may be substituted for therapeutic purposes by other products which, in its
judgment, do not cause dependency.

ARTICLE 245.- Insofar as the control and surveillance measures which the
health authorities should adopt, the psychotropic substances are classified in five
groups:
I.- Those which have scarce or no therapeutic value and which, due to the fact
that they are susceptible to being used improperly or abused, constitute an especially
grave problem for public health, which are:
39
0000000502
REDACTED
1415
Any other product, derivative or preparation which contains the substances

named in the preceding information, and when expressly determined by the Office of
the Secretary (Ministry) of Health or the General Health Council, their chemical
precursors and in general those which are similar in nature.
II.- Those which have some therapeutic value but constitute a grave risk for
public health which are:
AMOBARBITAL
AMPHETAMINE
BUTORFANOL
(And its salts, precursors and chemical derivatives)
CYCLOBARBITAL
DESTROAMPHETAMINE (DEXTROAMPHETAMINE)
PHENEEETHYLINE
PHENCICLIDINE
HEPTABARBITAL
MECLOCUALONE
METHACUALONE
METHAMPHETAMINE
NALBUFINE
PENTOBARBITAL
SECOBARBITAL.
()
Insofar as the distribution of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and

marijuana, with the intention to illegally import it to the United States of America;
said conduct is punishable by the Mexican Legislation in Article 194, Paragraph I
(commerce) in the Federal Criminal Code, in effect during the time period when the
acts were committed, since they establish that a term between ten to twenty-five
years of imprisonment shall be imposed on the individual who commercializes, and
let it be understood that by commercializes it means, the individual who sells, buys,
acquires or transfers any of the narcotics described in Article 193, and that in the
present request the subject is cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana,
which as stated are prohibited substances in any of their forms, derivatives or
preparations, in accordance with Articles 234, 235, 237 and 245 of the General Health
Law, since said Articles prohibit all acts related to the same and any product which
contains it is subject to what is determined by the General Health Law, the
International Conventions and Treaties which must be observed in Mexico, and those
stated in the remaining legal provisions applicable to the subject. Conducts related to
narcotics, psychotropics and remaining psychotropic substances, as provided in
Articles 234, 235, 237 and 245 of the General Health Law, because they constitute a
grave public health problem. Said Articles literally state:-----------------------------------
40
0000000503
REDACTED
1416
FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE
CHAPTER I
Concerning the production, possession, trafficking, proselytism and other acts

in narcotics matters:
ARTICLE 193- Considered as narcotics are narcotics, psychotropics and

remaining substances or vegetables which are determined by the General Health
Law, International Agreements and Treaties which must be observed in Mexico
and those which are stated in the remaining applicable legal provisions concerning
this subject.
For the purposes of this Chapter, conducts related to narcotics, psychotropics and
remaining substances provided for in Article 237, 245, Paragraphs I, II, III, and
248 of the General Health Law, which constitute a grave public health problem.
()

individual who:

authorization referred to in the General Health Law;

By supplying it means the material transmission in a direct or indirect manner, for

any reason, of the possession of narcotics. The commercializing and supply of
narcotics may be investigated, prosecuted and where applicable punished by the
ordinary jurisdiction authorities according to the terms under the General Health
Law, when the threshold is reached for the circumstances provided for in Article 474
of said Regulation.
preceding Article, even if were in an instantaneous manner or in transit. If the
introduction or removal referred to in this Paragraph should not take place, but from
the actions carried out it may be clearly inferred that such was the agents objective,
the applicable punishment shall be up to two thirds of what is provided for in this
present Article.
41
0000000504
REDACTED
1417
GENERAL HEALTH LAW
()
COCAINE (Methylic ester of benzoilecgonine).
()
The isomers of the narcotics in the preceding list, unless they are expressly
excluded.
Any other type of product derived or prepared which contains substances

listed in the preceding list, their chemical precursors, and in general, those of a similar
nature and any other substance which the Office of the Secretary (Ministry) of Health
or the General Health Council shall determine. The corresponding lists will be
published in the Federations Official Gazette.

IV. What is established in the other laws and provisions of a general nature
concerning the matter;
V. (REPEALED, D.O.F.MAY 7, 1997).
42
0000000505
REDACTED
1418
The acts referred to in this Article may only be engaged in for medical and
Health.
Article 237.- All of the acts mentioned in Article 235 of this Law,

ARTICLE 245.- Insofar as the control and surveillance measures which the
health authorities should adopt, the psychotropic substances are classified in five
groups:
I.- Those which have scarce or no therapeutic value and which, due to the fact
that they are susceptible to being used improperly or abused, constitute an especially
grave problem for public health, which are:
Any other product, derivative or preparation which contains the substances

named in the preceding list, and when expressly determined by the Office of the
Secretary (Ministry) of Health or the General Health Council, their chemical
precursors and in general those which have a similar nature.
II.- Those which have some therapeutic value but constitute a grave risk for
public health which are:
AMOBARBITAL
AMPHETAMINE
BUTORFANOL
(And its salts, precursors and chemical derivatives)
CYCLOBARBITAL
DESTROAMPHETAMINE (DEXAMPHETAMINE)
PHENETHYLINE
PHENCICLIDINE
HEPTABARBITAL
MECLOCUALONE
METHACUALONE
METHAMPHETAMINE
43
0000000506
REDACTED
1419
NALBUFINE
PENTOBARBITAL
SECOBARBITAL.
In reference to the conduct of possessing with the intent to distribute

cocaine, from the Criminal Prosecution brought against him by the Requesting
Government, this is defined by the Mexican Legislation in Article 195 of the Federal
Criminal Code, which defines and punishes a drug trafficking crime in the question of
possession stating that between five and fifteen years term of imprisonment shall
be imposed on the individual who possesses any of the narcotics named in Article 193
(which in the Case is cocaine), without the corresponding authorization referred to in
the General Health Law, as long as and when said possession be with the purpose to
carry out any of the conducts provided for in Article 194 (which it was for
distribution), both from the same legal regulation.-------------------------------------------
ARTICLE 195. Five to fifteen years of imprisonment and from one

hundred to three hundred daily salaries fine shall be imposed on the individual who
possesses any of the narcotics named in Article 193, without the corresponding
authorization referred to in the General Health Law, as long as and when said
possession be with the purpose to carry out any of the conducts provided for in
Article 194, both from this Code.
The possession of narcotics may be investigated, prosecuted, and if it were the

case punished by the Ordinary Jurisdiction in the terms of the General Health Law,
when the threshold in the provisions of Article 474 in said regulation is met.
When the defendant possesses any of the narcotics named in the Table
listed in Article 479 of the General Health Law, in a quantity equal to or greater than
that which would result from multiplying by one thousand those referenced there, it is
presumed that the possession has as its purpose to commit any of the conducts listed in
Article 194 of this Code.
Insofar as the conduct of using, carrying, brandishing and discharging a

firearm during and related to some drug trafficking crimes, from the accusations against
the extradited individual in Charge Sixteen, it may inferred that JOAQUN GUZMN
LOERA, ordered, helped or occasioned the commission of the crime with which he is
charged, since he was ordering the members of his criminal organization to use a firearm, to
provide protection, security, or any other activity to facilitate the organization of the
trafficking of drugs in the United States of America. In that regard, said conducts are defined
in the Mexican Criminal Legislation as provided in Article 8 and 11 Paragraphs d) and h),
related to in Article 83 Paragraph II of the Federal Weapons and Explosives Law, in effect
during the time period in which the acts were committed, which, prohibit and punish the
carrying and possession of weapons reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Navy and
Air Force, such as the machine guns used by the extradited individual, with a punishment of
four to fifteen years term of imprisonment.---------------------------------------------------------
44
0000000507
REDACTED
1420
ARTICLE 8
The possession or carrying of the weapons prohibited by Law nor those reserved for the
exclusive use of the Army, Navy and Air Force, will not be permitted, except for the
exceptional cases stated in this Law.
ARTICLE 11.
The weapons, ammunition and materials for the exclusive use of the Army,
Navy and Air Force are the following:
a)- .357 caliber Magnum revolvers and those above the .38 Special.
b)- 9mm. caliber pistols. Parabellum, Luger and similar pistols, the .38 Super
and Comando, and those with higher calibers.
c.- .223, 7 mm., 7.62 mm. rifles, muskets, carbines and .30 caliber carbines in
all its models.
d.- Pistols, carbines and rifles with a rapid fire system, submachine guns,
machine guns of all calibers.
e.- Shotguns with a barrel length inferior to 635 mm. (25), caliber above .12
(.729 or 18.5 mm.) and gas launchers, except those for industrial use.
f.- Ammunitions for the preceding weapons and cartridges with special
artifacts such as tracers, incendiary, perforating or fumigating, gas expanders and
those loaded with posts above 00 (.84 cms.) in diameter for shotguns.
g.- Cannons, artillery pieces, mortars and combat vehicles with their additions,
accessories, projectiles and ammunitions.
h.- Rocket launchers, torpedoes, grenades, bombs, mines, depth chargers,

fire throwers and similar devices, as well as the apparatus, artifacts and
machines to launch them.
i.- Bayonets, sabers and spears.
j.- Ships, submarines, vessels and hydroplanes for naval warfare and their
armaments.
k.- War planes and their armament.
45
0000000508
REDACTED
1421
l)- War artifacts, gases and chemical substances with a strictly military use,
and the various uses devised by the Armed Forces.
In general, all the weapons, ammunition and materials exclusively to be used

for war.
The weapons for this purpose, with justification of their necessity, may be
authorized by the Office of the Secretary (Ministry) of National Defense,
individually, or as an entity, to those who have jobs or positions in the Federation, the
Federal District, in the States or Cities.
ARTICLE 83.- Whosoever, without the corresponding permit, carries a

weapon which is for the exclusive use of the Army, Navy, or Air Forces shall be
punished:
1, With 3 months to a one year term of imprisonment and from one to 10 daily
salaries as a fine, when the weapons are within Paragraph i) of Article 11 of this Law:
2. With three to ten years term of imprisonment and from fifty to two hundred
daily salaries as a fine, when the weapons are within Paragraphs a) and b) of Article
11 of this Law, and
3. With four to fifteen years term of imprisonment and from one to five
hundred daily salaries as a fine, when any other of these weapons is involved
which are included in Article 11 of this Law.
In the event that two or more weapons are carried, the corresponding
punishment will increase by two thirds.
When three or more individuals, members of a group, carry weapons included

in Paragraph III of this present Article, the corresponding punishment for each one of
them will double.
Now, concerning the conducts related to the illegal laundering of money,

accusation charged in Charge Seventeen, since allegedly Mr. JOAQUN GUZMN
LOERA directed some financial transactions, knowing that the United States
currency implicated in said transactions constituted the profits from drug trafficking;
said conduct is punished and provided for in the Federal Criminal Code in effect
during the period of time in which the acts were committed, in its Article 400 bis,
which defines operations with resources from an illegal origin, since it establishes
that a term of imprisonment from five to fifteen years shall be imposed on the
individual who by himself /herself, or through an intermediate individual engages in
any of the following conducts: acquires, transfers, administers, custodies, exchanges,
deposits, gives in surety, invests, transports or transfers within the national territory,
from said territory abroad, or the reverse, resources, rights or assets of any kind, with
46
0000000509
REDACTED
1422
the knowledge that their origin is from or they represent the product of an illegal
activity, with any of the following purposes: to hide or try to hide, cover up, or
impede the knowledge of the origin, location, destination or ownership of said
resources, rights or assets, or encourages any illegal activity, which in this present
case is drug trafficking.---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE 400 bis. Five to fifteen years term of imprisonment

and from one thousand to five thousand daily salaries fine shall be imposed
on the individual who by himself/herself or through an intermediate
individual, engages in any of the following conducts: acquires, transfers,
administers, custodies, changes, deposits, gives in surety, invests,
transports or transfers within the national territory, or from said
territory abroad, or the reverse, resources, rights or assets of any kind,
with the knowledge that their origin is from, or they represent the product of
an illegal activity, with any of the following purposes: to hide or try to
hide, cover up, or impede the knowledge of the origin, location, destination
or ownership of said resources, rights, or assets, or encourages any illegal
activity.
In accordance with what is previously stated and based on the previously

named corresponding Articles from the Mexican Criminal Code, the conducts for
which the request in made for JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA are punishable with a
term of imprisonment, whose maximum is not less than one year.------------------------
Concerning the legislation in the United States of America, the conducts of

which JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA is accused are also punishable in the United
States legislation with a term of imprisonment whose maximum is not less than one
year, because that is what is required in the Extradition Treaty, in Article 2, Number
1, signed between the United Mexican States and the United States of America, in
accordance with the following,------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) in Charge One, having been involved in a continuing criminal enterprise, in

violation of what is stipulated in Sections 848(a), 848(b), 848(c) and 848(e)(1)(A)
of Title 21 of the United States Code, the applicable punishment is the death
penalty or a term of life in prison.----------------------------------------------------------
Concerning this Charge, it should be pointed out that the Government
of the United States of America provided sufficient guarantees concerning the fact that
the death penalty will NOT be applied to Mr. JOAQUN GUZMN-LOERA, in the
additional case for which the CONSENT TO THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF
SPECIALTY is requested, as will be studied below.----------------------------------------------
controlled substances to wit: five kilograms of or more of cocaine, one kilogram
or more of heroin, 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and a thousand
47
0000000510
REDACTED
1423
kilograms or more of marijuana, knowingly and with the intention that said
controlled substances were going to be illegally imported to the United States
from a location abroad, in violation of what is stipulated in Sections 963, 959(a), ,
960(b)(1)(A), 960(b)(1)(B)(ii), 960(B)(1)(G), and 960(b)(1)(H) of Title 21 of the
United States Code; the maximum term of imprisonment is for life.------------------
(3) in Charge Three, conspiracy to import a controlled substance to the United

States, to wit: five kilograms of cocaine knowingly and with the intention that said
controlled substance was going to be illegally imported to the United States from
a location abroad, in violation of what is stipulated in Sections 963, 959(a),
960(a)(1), and 960(b)(1)(B)(ii) of Title 21 of the United States Code; the
maximum term of imprisonment is for life.------------------------------------------
distribute a controlled substance: to wit, five kilograms or more of cocaine, in
violation of what is stipulated in Sections 846, 841(a) and 841(b)(1)(A)(ii)(II) of
Title 21 of the United States Code; the maximum term of imprisonment is for
life.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5 to 15) in Charges Five to Fifteen, international distribution of a controlled

substance, to wit: five kilograms or more of cocaine having the intention and
knowing that said substance was going to be illegally imported to the United
States, in violation of what is stipulated in Sections 959(a), 959(c), 960(a)(3) and
960(b)(1)(B)(ii) of Title 21 of the United States Code; the maximum term of
imprisonment is for life.---------------------------------------------------------------------
(16) in Charge Sixteen, of carrying, brandishing and discharging one or more

firearms, one of which was a machine gun, during and related to one or more drug
crimes, to wit, the accusations in Charges from One to Fifteen, in violation of
what is stipulated in Sections 924(c)(1)(A)(i), 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), 924(c)(1)(A)(iii)
and 924(c)(1)(B)(ii) of Title 18 of the United States Code; the maximum term of
imprisonment is from five to twenty years.-------------------------------
(17) in Charge Seventeen conspiracy to launder United States currency, knowing

that said United States currency constituted the profits from drug trafficking
through: (a) the transfer and the delivery of drug trafficking profits with the
intention of promoting the participation in drug trafficking to promote the
continuity of drug trafficking and to hide and disguise the nature, the location, the
origin and the ownership of the profits from the drug sales, and (b) the transport,
transmission and transfer of some monetary instruments and funds from the
United States to Mexico and Colombia, with the intention to promote the
participation in drug trafficking and to disguise the nature, the location, the source
and the ownership of the profits from the drug sales, in violation of what is
stipulated in Sections 1956 (h), 1956(a)(1)(A)(i), 1956(a)(1)(B), 1956(a)(2)(A)
48
0000000511
REDACTED
1424
and 1956(a)(2)(B) of Title 18 of the United States Code; the maximum term of
imprisonment is twenty years.------------------------------------------------------------
methamphetamine are Category II controlled substances, according to Section
812, of Title 21 of the United States Code.---------------------------------------------
On the other hand, the present extradition proceeding complies with

what is stated in Article 2, Number 1 of the cited Treaty, which establishes that
intentional illegal conducts which are included within any of the Paragraphs of the
Appendix of the many times cited International Document shall be grounds for
extradition, and the conducts of which the extradited individual is accused, which
are included within Paragraphs 4 and 6 of the referenced Appendix, are grounds
for extradition, Paragraphs which literally state:
12.- To receive or transport sums of money, valuables or any other thing

knowing that they were obtained illegally.
14.- Crimes related to the trafficking, possession, production, elaboration,

importation or exportation of drugs and dangerous chemical products including
narcotics drugs, cannabis, psychotropic drugs, opium, cocaine or their
derivatives.
19.- Crimes concerning the matter of prohibited weapons and control of firearms,
ammunitions, explosives, incendiary devices or nuclear materials.
At the same time it is important to point out that, even though the crimes of
conspiracy and organized crime, are not mentioned in any of the Paragraphs in the Treatys
Appendix, there is still proper cause for the extradition in accordance with Number 3, from
Article 2, of the Extradition Treaty signed between the United Mexican States and the United
States of America, which literally states:--------------------------------------------------------------
Cause for extradition shall also be the intentional conducts which, without
being included in the Appendix, are punishable in accordance with the
Federal Laws of both Contracting Parties, with a term of imprisonment whose
maximum is not less than one year
Based on the above, the extradition of Mr. JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA is

considered to have legal merit because, as has been analyzed previously, the intentional
conducts allegedly committed by the extradited individual are punishable in the United States
Federal Legislation with a term of imprisonment whose maximum is not less than one year,
and said illegal conducts are equally found to be punishable in Mexico in Articles 2,
49
0000000512
REDACTED
1425
Paragraphs I and II; 4, Paragraph I, a) and Paragraph II, a) from the Federal Law Against
Organized Crime; 164, 194, 195, 197; and 400 bis; from the Federal Criminal Code and 8
and 11 Paragraphs d) and h), in relation to the Federal Firearms and Explosives Law; and in
Sections 846, 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(ii) and 841(b)(1)(A)(vii), of Title 21 of the United
States of America Code; 1956(h), 1956(a)(1)(A)(i), 1956 (a) (1)(B), 1956(a)(2)(A) and
1956(a)(2)(B) of Title 18 of the United States of America Code; 924(c)(1)(A)(i),
924(c)(1)(A)(ii), 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) and 924(c)(1)(B)(ii)) of Title 18 of the United States Code;
and 848(e)(1)(A) of Title 21 of the United States of America Code; and 848(b)(1) and
848(b)(2)(A) of Title 21 of the United States of America.-------------------------------------------
As support for the above, there is legal case law criteria which literally states:
Series: Ninth Series.
Registry 174722
Appellate Review: First Division
Type of Binding Precedent: Isolated
Source: Mexican Supreme Courts Reports and its Gazette
Volume: XXIV, July, 2006.
Materiality: Constitutional
Binding Precedent: 1st. CXII/2006, Binding Precedent
Page: 332
EXTRADITION. ARTICLE 2, NUMBER 4, PARAGRAPH A), OF THE RELEVANT

TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES AND THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTICLES 49, 73, PARAGRAPH
XXI, 89, PARAGRAPH X, AND 133 OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
In Article 2, Number 4, Paragraph a), of the Extradition Treaty between the United Mexican
States and the United States of America, when it provides that under the conditions
established in Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the precept itself, extradition will also be granted for
the attempt to commit a crime, the conspiracy to prepare it, and carry it out, or the
participation in carrying it out, does not violate Articles 49, 73, Paragraph XXI, 89,
Paragraph X and 133 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States
which institute, respectively, the principle of the division of powers; the power of the
Unions Congress to establish crimes and faults against the Federation and to set the
punishments which should be imposed for them; the President of the Republics power to
direct foreign policy and to sign international treaties, and the principles of constitutional
supremacy and hierarchy of regulation.- The above is thus, because when the Federal
Executive Branch agreed in said Treaty to the crimes which would be cause for extradition
between both countries, it did not legislate in federal criminal matters, because it did not
establish any crime or fault against the Mexican Federation, not did it set the punishments
which should be imposed for them, but rather committed itself to hand over the
individuals who may be found to be in our territory and concerning whom the
authorities with jurisdiction in the United States Government have commenced a
criminal proceeding, who have been declared responsible for a crime, or who are being
sought by said authorities to comply with a term of imprisonment legally imposed, as
50
0000000513
REDACTED
1426
long as the laws of both countries provide a punishment for said crime which has been
committed in similar circumstances, which is congruent with our national legal process
insofar as the Constituting Authority conferred on the Federal Executive Branch the power
to issue materially legislative certifications in the international arena as is the case of the
Extradition Treaty mentioned conditioning their validity that they be accordance with the
Federal Constitution.
Amparo for review 3/2006. April 26, 2006, Five votes. Writer of the Court Opinion: Jos
Ramn Cosso Daz. Clerk: Lorena Goslinga Remrez.
EXTRADITION TREATIES SIGNED BY MEXICO. TO DETERMINE WHETHER

THE CONDUCT ATTRIBUTED TO THE INDIVIDUAL REQUESTED
CONSTITUTES A CRIME IN BOTH GOVERNMENTS, THE PRINCIPLE OF
EXACT APPLICATION OF THE LAW IN CRIMINAL MATTERS IS NOT
APPLICABLE. The principle of exact application of criminal law, referring to a guarantee
of legal certainty which prohibits the imposition by simple analogy, or even, by a
preponderance of reason, of any punishment that has not been established by an exactly
applicable law for the crime in question, is not applicable to determine whether the conduct
attributed to the individual being requested constitutes a crime in accordance with the
Legislation of the two Governments who are the signers of the Extradition Treaty, since said
principle alludes to the regulation which establishes a statutory definition of the crime
and a punishment, but not a comparison of two concepts in addition, for the purposes
of granting the extradition it is not necessary that the crime be described and punished
in the same terms.
BINDING RESOLUTION (THESIS) Number XXVIII/2008 (FULL COURT)

Amparo for review 1267/2003.- Defendant: Marco Antonio Garca Lpez- February 16,
2096 (sic).- Unanimous 11 votes. Writer of the Court Opinion: Guillermo I. Ortiz
Mayagoitia.- Clerk: Marco Antonio Cepeda Anaya. Amparo for review 1303/2003.-
Defendants: Antonio Deras Gonzlez and Susana Aragn Lugo.- February 21, 2006.-
Unanimous 11 votes.- Writer of the Court Opinion: Genaro David Gngora Pimentel.- Clerk:
Javier Arnaud Vias.
Therefore, it is concluded that the conducts attributed to the extradited

individual in the Government making the request, are intentional conducts which fit within
Paragraphs 12, 14 and 19 in the Appendix of the Extradition Treaty between the United
Mexican States and the United States of America, and are punishable in accordance with the
laws of both Contracting Parties with a term of imprisonment whose maximum is not less
than one year, and therefore the Requirement provided for in Article 2 of the applicable
Bilateral Treaty is considered satisfied.-----------------------------------------------------------------
G. ANALYSIS OF THE GROUNDS FOR DENIAL.
51
0000000514
REDACTED
1427
VII. An analysis is conducted whether the Request for Consent for Mr.
JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA to be prosecuted for additional charges to those for which
he was extradited, is not found in any of the legal grounds agreed to between the
Government of Mexico and the Government of the United States of America to deny the
extradition, which are contemplated in Articles 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the bilateral Extradition
Treaty, as follows, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. That Article 5 of the Extradition Treaty signed between the United

Mexican States and the United States of America, establishes that international extradition
will not have legal merit for political crimes or of a political nature, nor crimes which are
purely military in nature, which literally states:-------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE 5.
Political and Military Crimes
1.- Extradition will not be granted if the crime for which it was requested is
political or political in nature. In the event that any question should arise
concerning the application of the foregoing Paragraph, the decision will correspond
to the Executive Branch of the Party to Whom the Request is Made.
2.- For the purposes of this Treaty, the following crimes are not considered to be
included in Paragraph 1:
a) Homicide or another intentional crime against the life or physical integrity of a

Head of State or of Government, or a member of his-her family, including the
attempt to commit a crime of that nature.
b) A crime which the Contracting Parties have the obligation to prosecute in view
of an international multilateral convention.
3.- Extradition will not be granted when the crime for which it was requested is a
purely military crime.
To that end, this Office of the Secretary (Ministry) of State takes into account
that the crimes for which the Government of the United States of America requests
CONSENT TO THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF SPECIALTY, so that Mr.
JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA may be prosecuted for additional crimes than the ones for
which his extradition was granted, they do not constitute political crimes, since under the
terms of what is stated in Article 144 of the Federal Criminal Code, crimes which are
political in nature are rebellion, sedition, mutiny, and conspiracy to commit them, which are
not contemplated in the request for extradition formulated by the Requesting Government
against the extradited individual, since in its request it is indicated that said request for
handing him over is so that he may be prosecuted for organized crime, conspiracy, drug
trafficking crimes and weapons possession.------------------------------------------------------------
52
0000000515
REDACTED
1428
Also, said crimes of which Mr. JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA is accused

are not military in nature, or have any relationship with this cause for denial, since from the
sworn statements contained in the File before us it does not appear that the extradited
individual belongs to, or could have belonged to the militia in the Requesting Government,
or the Government to whom the request is made, and therefore, he has not committed related
conducts against military discipline.------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the causes for denial contemplated in Article 5 of the applicable

Bilateral Treaty are not activated.-----------------------------------------------------------------------
B.- That in Article 6 of the applicable Bilateral Treaty, it literally states:--------
ARTICLE 6 Nom bis in idem
Extradition shall not be granted when the individual being requested may have
been submitted to a prosecution or has been tried and sentenced or acquitted by the
Party to Whom the Request is Made for the same crime on which the Request for
Extradition is based.
In accordance with the Extradition File in view, no document or evidence is

found which would permit the verification that the now extradited individual has been
submitted to a prosecution, or has been tried and found guilty or acquitted by the Mexican
authorities for the same crime, or for the same facts on which the Request being analyzed is
based, combined with the fact that the Office of the Republics Attorney General referred to
the fact that it has legal merit to grant the Consent to the Rule of Specialty, because none of
the causes for denial are activated.-----------------------------------------------------------------------
C.- Insofar as the cause for denial contained in Article 7 of the Extradition
Treaty signed between the United Mexican States and the United States of America, which
literally states:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE 7 Statute of Limitations
Extradition will not be granted when a criminal prosecution or the

punishment for which the extradition is requested is beyond the statute of
limitations, in accordance with the Laws of the Requesting Party or the Party to
Whom the Request is Made.
This Office of the Secretary (Ministry) of State proceeds to study the statute of
limitations for the criminal prosecution for the illegal acts of the which the requested
individual is accused in accordance with Mexican Legislation at the time in which the acts
occurred, in the following terms:----------------------------------------------------------------------
53
0000000516
REDACTED
1429
Concerning the crimes of which JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA is accused

within the Fourth Superseding Indictment with Case Number 09-CR-466(SLT)S-4),
presented on May 11, 2016, at the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, these conducts are placed within the hypothesis of the prosecution of a series of crimes
prosecuted jointly, since according to what is stated in Article 18 of the Federal Criminal
Code, there is prosecution of a series crimes in the event there were more than one crime
when, with a plurality of conducts, several crimes are committed. In that sense, in accordance
with Article 108 of the Federal Criminal Code, in the event of the prosecution of a series of
crimes, the criminal actions will be beyond the statute of limitations when the crime which
merits the greatest punishment goes beyond the statute, which is provided for and punished
in Article 2, Paragraph I of the Federal Law Against Organized Crime, related to Article 4,
Paragraph I, a) and Paragraph II a) within the cited legal regulations, which punishes with a
term of imprisonment from twenty to forty years, anyone who being a member of organized
crime has the functions of administration, direction or supervision, insofar as organized
crime, whose arithmetic middle point calculation is thirty years, which have not elapsed
from 1989 and until September 2014, this last date in which the United States authorities
have knowledge of the later conduct engaged in by the criminal organization directed by the
individual requested in this current Extradition Request.---------------------------------------------
Now, insofar as the Requesting Governments Legislation, the criminal action

to try the requested individual is not barred by the Statute of Limitations, since from the
documentation presented it may be inferred that the Assistant United States Attorney for the
United States Attorneys Office for the Eastern District of New York, in Brooklyn, New
York, particularly in her sworn statement , stated that Section 3282 of Title 18 of the United
States Code, is the the Statute of Limitations Law applicable to try the crimes accused in the
Fourth Superseding Indictment, which requires that the requested individual be indicted
within five years of the commission of the crime or crimes, and therefore bearing in mind
that they were carried out from 1989 and September, 2014, and the Indictment was presented
May 11, 2016, it may be seen that the conducts committed by JOAQUN GUZMN
LOERA are not time barred by the Statute of Limitations.------------------------------------------
Given the above, the cause for denial contained in Article 7 of the Extradition
Treaty signed between the United Mexican States and the United States of Americas is not
activated, since the criminal case to prosecute and punish the extradited individual in
Mexican Criminal Legislation is not time barred, nor is it in the Criminal Legislation of the
Requesting Government.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D.- On the other hand, and related to Article 8 of the applicable bilateral
Treaty which literally states
ARTICLE 8
Death Penalty
54
0000000517
REDACTED
1430
When the crime for which the Extradition is requested is punishable with the
death penalty in accordance with the Requesting Partys Laws, and the Laws of
the Party to Whom the Request is Made do not allow such punishment for that
crime, the Extradition may be refused unless the Requesting Party gives
sufficient assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed, or that if it is
imposed, it will not be carried out, to the Party to Whom the Request is Made,
It should be noted that the Requesting Government through its Embassy and through
Diplomatic Note Number 17-0245 dated today, provided sufficient guarantees that the death
penalty will not be applied to the extradited individual, and if that were to happen, it will not
be carried out, if Mr. JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA is extradited to the United States of
America, since it literally states:-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with Article 8 of the Extradition Treaty, the Government of the

United States assures the Mexican Government that a death sentence shall not
be imposed, and if that were, it will not be carried out in this case if the
Mexican Government authorizes the United States Government to try
GUZMN LOERA for the crimes of which he is accused in the Fourth
Superseding Indictment.
Concerning the guarantees that the death penalty will not be applied presented
by the United States Government, this Office of the Secretary (Ministry) of State underlines
the fact that said assurances have been presented by the United States, in its capacity as a
Government, as recognized in the Geneva Convention Concerning Diplomatic Relations,
since in its Article 3, it indicates the following:-------------------------------------------------------
Article 3
1. The functions of a diplomatic mission consist primarily in:
A) representing the accrediting Government before the receiving Government.
Since in accordance with International Law, the Embassy represents the

accrediting Government in its totality and is acting in its name, therefore Mr.
Deputy Chief at the Embassy of the United States of America in Mexico, who
signed the corresponding Diplomatic Note, in use of his full faculties which he has at the
Diplomatic Representation, and which have been recognized by the Government of Mexico,
sent the following statement to the Mexican Government, through this Office of the
Secretary (Ministry) of Foreign Affairs:----------------------------------------------------------------
Following that line of thought, Article 41, Number 2 of the cited Multilateral
Convention establishes that it is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to whom it corresponds to
handle international relations, since that is the entity through which the Government has
contact with the members of the international community, and said Number literally states:
55
0000000518
REDACTED
1431
Article 41.

2. All official matters for which the mission is in charge by the

accrediting Government have to be Treaties with the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of that Government, or through its representative, or with the Ministry
which has been agreed on.

In the case of Mexico, it corresponds to this Office of the Secretary (Ministry)

of Foreign Affairs to direct the functions which the Mexican Government carries out in the
realm of its international relations, as is established in Article 28, Paragraph I of the Federal
Public Administration Act, and at the same time it is the channel through which other
Governments are in contact with the accrediting country.--------------------------------------------
Therefore, the cited Diplomatic Note through which the Government of the
United States of America presented the corresponding guarantees that the death penalty will
not be applied or imposed on the extradited individual, was issued in accordance with the law
and with international custom in matters of diplomatic communications, since it contains the
Seal of the cited Mission and is signed by Mr. Deputy Chief at the
United States of America Embassy in Mexico, who is the official accredited by the
Government of the United States of America before the Government of the United Mexican
States to sign Notes of that kind.-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the above, it is considered that the guarantees provided by the

Government of the United States of America, as a Government, through its Embassy, are
sufficient to determine that the death penalty will not be imposed on Mr. JOAQQUN
GUZMN LOERA, or that, if it were imposed, it will not be carried out on the extradited
individual, in terms of what is agreed to in Article 8 of the applicable Bilateral Treaty, since
said guarantees were provided by a recognized Government which regulates its international
relations, the same as Mexico, based on the Vienna Convention concerning Diplomatic
Relations.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, this Ministry takes into account the fact that the guarantees
presented in Diplomatic Note 17-0245 from January 19, 2017, constitute a commitment on
the part of the Government of the United States of America to the Government of Mexico in
regards to the non-imposition of the death penalty on the extradited individual JOAQUN
GUZMN LOERA, and therefore this Office of the Secretary (Ministry) of Foreign Affairs,
an agency of the Federal Executive Branch, legally empowered to manage foreign policy and
to decide about extradition requests which foreign Governments formulate, considers that the
requirement set forth in Article 8 of the International Extradition Treaty has been met, since
the Requesting Country has given sufficient assurances to the Government of Mexico that
the death penalty will not be imposed on the requested individual, or that if it were, it would
not be carried out.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
56
0000000519
REDACTED
1432
H. ARTICLE 9 OF THE BILATERAL TREATY
VIII.- Concerning Mr. JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA, alias Joaqun

Guzmn Loera, alias Joaqun Archivaldo Guzmn Loera, alias Joaqun Archivaldo
Guzmn-Loera, alias Chapo Guzmn, alias Chappo Guzmn, alias Chapo, alias El
Chapo, alias El Arquitecto, alias El Architecto, alias Gilberto Osuna, alias Max
Aragn, alias Jos Luis Ramrez, alias El Rpido, alias Shorty, alias El Seor, alias
El Jefe, alias Nana, alias Ap, alias Pap, alias Inge, alias El Viejo, alias El
Primo, alias El Padrino, alias To, is a Mexican national, it is considered that this fact
does not impede granting the authorization requested by the Requesting Government
so that the Exception to the Rule of Specialty legally has merit, so that he may confront the
criminal prosecution for which he is requested, given the fact that no legal impediment exists
in the national legislation to act accordingly, in accordance with the following
considerations:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That the Government of the United States of America accompanied the

request which is being decided against Mr. JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA, with a Certified
copy of the Indictment with its corresponding translation into Spanish, in which it is
indicated that the members of the Grand Jury at the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, indicted Mr. JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA for the Charges
stated in Legal Conclusion II in this decision, from which it may inferred that at said United
States Court a criminal prosecution was begun against Mr. JOAQUN GUZMN
LOERA.
Given that, modern international society demands and requires that

crimes not go unpunished, and for that reason, through Extradition Treaties or Conventions,
two or more Governments commit and obligate themselves reciprocally, with the prior
fulfillment of the formal and procedural requirements agreed on for handing over an alleged
criminal or convict to try him, punish him, or to apply to him the corresponding seizure
measures, and therefore bearing in mind that the CONSENT TO THE EXCEPTION TO
THE RULE OF SPECIALTY requested by the Requesting Government against Mr.
JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA, is based on what is agreed to in the Extradition Treaty
between the United Mexican States and the United States of America, it is considered that
said international document does not prohibit handing over its citizens for extradition,
and for that reason it is also has legal merit to grant the requested authorization, since in its
Article 9, Number 1, it literally states:------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE 9
Extradition of Citizens
1.- Neither of the two Contracting Parties shall be obligated to hand over its citizens
but the Executive Branch of the Party to Whom the Request is Made shall have the power, if
its laws do not prohibit it, to hand them over if, at its entire discretions, it deems it to be
legally proper.
()
57
0000000520
REDACTED
1433
Following this thought process, it is pointed out that there is no

regulation contained in the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, the Supreme
Law of the Nation, or from the laws which are issued by it, which prohibits or impedes,
handing over Mexican citizens for extradition, in other words, the Political Constitution of
the United Mexican States does not contain any guarantee whatsoever in favor of
Mexicans so that they cannot be extradited to a foreign Government, much less the
secondary law, which already occurred, and as a result, it not prohibited either to grant the
authorization requested by the Government of the United States so that the now extradited
individual may be tried for additional crimes, based on the Treaty signed by both countries,
where the Independent Binding Precedent CXIII/2006 approved by the Appellate Review
First Division of our Highest Court, which literally states:------------------------------------------
-
EXTRADITION. ARTICLE 9, NUMBER 1, OF THE PERTINENT TREATY

BETWEEN THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES AND THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA DOES NOT VIOLATE THE GUARANTEE OF LEGALITY
CONTAINED IN ARTICLES 14 AND 16 OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
Article 9, Number 1, of the Extradition Treaty between the United Mexican States and the
United States of America which establishes that neither of the two contracting parties shall
be obligated to hand over their citizens, but the Executive Branch of the Party to Whom the
Request is Made, shall have the power if its laws do not prohibit it, to hand them over if,
entirely at its discretion, it considers it legally proper- this should not be analyzed in an
isolated way but rather in the light of the regulatory system of which it is a part. In this
regard, it should be kept in mind that the Political Constitution of the United Mexican
States does not contain any guarantee whatsoever in favor of Mexicans so that they
cannot be extradited to a foreign Government, when the legal constitutional requirements
have been satisfied, and, if it were the case, the conventional ones provided for said
purposes. Having detailed the above and in accordance with Article 13, Number 1, of the
cited Extradition Treaty, notice is given that the Extradition Request shall be processed in
accordance with the Legislation of the Party to Whom the Request is Made, since in Chapter
II of the International Extradition Law which includes Articles 16 to 37, it establishes the
procedure for the Mexican Government to grant an Extradition request. Also, it should be
pointed out that the President of the Republic may exercise his power established in
Article 9, Number 1, of the cited Treaty only in those cases covered in the Treaty itself.
As a result, relating the aforementioned Article 9, Number 1, to the constitutional, legal, and
conventional precepts referred to, the conclusion is that said Article does not violate the
guarantee of legality contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Federal Constitution, because it
does not confer on the Federal Executive Branch an arbitrary power, since this power may be
used in the cases and through the procedures established in the Law and the subject Treaty,
meaning, when the authority uses said discretionary power, it should be done without
retroactively applying any regulation in prejudice of the affected individual, considering the
formalities of the Extradition proceeding, and founding and motivating properly the reason
for the use of said power.
58
0000000521
REDACTED
1434
The above equally is founded on the criteria of the Full Supreme Court of Justice for
the Nation, which resolved that the Executive Branch enjoys the discretionary power of
handing over, at the request of the Government of the United States of America, those
Mexicans who have committed crimes in that country, criteria supported in its open court
session held January 18, 2001, in which it established Judicial Precedent No. 11/2001, which
literally states:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXTRADITION. THE POSSIBILITY THAT A MEXICAN MAY BE TRIED

IN THE REPUBLIC IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 4 OF THE FEDERAL
CRIMINAL CODE DOES NOT IMPEDE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH FROM
GRANTING IT, USING THE DISCRETIONARY POWER WHICH THE
EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES AND THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GIVES IT. In accordance with Article 9.1 of said
Treaty, Neither of the two signing Parties is obligated to hand over it citizens, but the
Executive Branch of the Party to Whom the Request is Made shall have the power, if its laws
do not prohibit it, to hand them over if, at its entire discretion, it deems it legally proper.
From this it may be inferred, insofar as the Mexican Government, that the Executive
Branch enjoys the discretionary power to hand over, at the request of the United States
of America, Mexicans who have committed crimes in that country, if its laws do not
prohibit it. This expression should be understood as a prohibition for the Executive Branch
to agree to the Extradition requested, but only in the event that it were thus established in the
Political Constitution of the United Mexican States or any federal law. Now, the grammatical
and systematic analysis of Article 4 of the Federal Criminal Code, leads to the conclusion
that it does not support any prohibition or impediment to the extradition, but rather
substantially establishes an applicable rule of law insofar as it provides that they shall be
punished in the Republic, in accordance with Federal Laws, which means that in the event
that a Mexican were to be tried in the Republic for a crime committed abroad, he would be
punished with the punishments established in Mexican Federal Laws, and not in accordance
with the laws of the foreign Government where he is accused of committing a crime, but his
extradition is not prohibited.
In the same vein, it is reiterated that the United Mexican States and the
United States of America agreed to sign an Extradition Treaty to cooperate more closely in
the fight against the mentioned scourge, and therefore in the Preamble of this cited Treaty it
literally states:
The Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the
United States of America, with the desire to cooperate more closely in the fight against
crime and to help each other mutually for that purpose, a greater assistance in
extradition matters. They have agreed to the following
Therefore, said international document being the expression of the will

of the Governments of both peoples to cooperate intensely in the fight against crime, then
this Office of the Ministry deems the requested authorization for Mr. JOAQUN
GUZMN- LOERA to be prosecuted for additional crimes than those for which his
59
0000000522
REDACTED
1435
extradition was granted legally has merit, due to the motives and foundations to which
reference has been made, as well as the antisocial nature of the crimes attributed to him,
since the due process legal benefits from the criminal regulations, which probably the
extradited individual has violated, and which, in Mexico are called crimes against life,
health, and public safety, and these are fundamental values of human beings.--------------------
Therefore, and bearing in mind that the Office of the Secretary

(Ministry) of Foreign Affairs is empowered to decide this current Petition, as part of its
management of foreign policy, in harmony with what has been stated in Article 89,
Paragraph X Constitutional, and Article 28, Paragraph I, of the Federal Public
Administration Act which provides that it corresponds to the Office of the Secretary
(Ministry) of Foreign Affairs to conduct foreign policy, while Article 7, Paragraph I of the
Internal Regulation from the Office of the Secretary (Ministry) of Foreign Affairs, published
in the Federations Official Gazette on January 8, 2009, empowers whoever decides to
execute Mexicos foreign policy in accordance with the directions to that effect the President
of the Republic issues, the decision made in this present Agreement is exercising the
attributes to conduct and execute foreign policy which corresponds to the Office of the
Secretary (Ministry) of Foreign Affairs, and forms part of the scope of Mexican Government
affairs in its international relations, since an important part of said policy is international
cooperation to combat transnational crime, and concerning this, the undersigned keeps the
following in mind:-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- That drug trafficking is one of the most challenging problems in the global
arena because of its great financial and operations capability, as well as due to its
transnational character, since it crosses borders through a multifaceted criminal chain in
which producers, processors, transporters, distributers and sellers participate, at the
same time that their activities have diversified to other criminal spheres such as money
laundering, kidnapping, bribery, weapons trafficking, among others: therefore the drug
trafficking problem is a challenge of a transnational nature.
- This scourge has been able to set up transnational networks to cultivate drugs
on a continent, or a determined region, the same as to move them, store them, distribute them
and commercialize them. Therefore, drug trafficking cannot be considered only a local
problem, since it crosses borders and it constitutes a problem with a regional and
worldwide reach. Due to this, this illegal activity has not only become a worry for the
Mexican Government but also for the international community because of the grave
harmful effects it has on the ability to govern, the democratic system, the economy,
finances and because of the social harms that it causes.---------------------------------------
- That in the Preamble and Article 2 of the United Nations Convention

Against The Illegal Trafficking of Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances, adopted in
Vienna, Austria, December 20, 1988, to which both the United States of America and
Mexico are Parties, the interest and worry of the member States to confront and take actions
against this transnational challenge were expressed, stating literally:------------------------------
60
0000000523
REDACTED
1436
()
The Parties to this present Convention,
Deeply worried by the magnitude and growing tendency of the production, demand
and illegal trafficking of narcotics and psychotropic substances, which represent a grave
threat for the health and wellbeing of human beings and undermine societys economic,
cultural and political foundations.
Profoundly worried also by the sustained and growing penetration of the illegal
trafficking of narcotics and psychotropic substances in diverse social groups, and in
particular, by the use of children in many parts of the world as a consumer market and as
instruments for the production, distribution and illegal commercializing of drugs and
psychotropic substances, which carries with it an incalculably grave danger.
Recognizing the connections that exist between illegal trafficking and other organized
criminal activities linked to it, which undermine legal economies and threaten the stability,
security and sovereignty of Governments,
Recognizing also that illegal trafficking is an international criminal activity whose

suppression demands urgent attention and to be the highest priority.
Conscious of the fact that illegal trafficking generates considerable financial gains
and large fortunes which permit the transnational criminal organizations to invade,
contaminate and corrupt public administration structures, commercial and financial activities,
and society at all levels,
Decided to deprive the individuals dedicated to the illegal trafficking of the product of
their criminal activities and thus eliminate their principal incentive for said activity,
Desirous of eliminating the profound causes of the problem of the improper use of
narcotics and psychotropic substances, understanding the illegal demand for such drugs and
substances and the enormous profits derived from illegal trafficking,
Considering that control measures are necessary concerning determined substances,

such as the precursors, chemical and dissolvent products, which are used in the
manufacturing of narcotics and psychotropic substances, and which, due to the ease with
which they are obtained, have provoked an increase in the hidden manufacturing of those
drugs and substances,
Decided to improve international cooperation for the suppression of illegal trafficking

by sea,
61
0000000524
REDACTED
1437
Recognizing that the eradication of illegal trafficking is the collective responsibility

of all Governments and that, to that end, a coordinated action in the framework of
international cooperation is necessary.
Recognizing also the United Nations jurisdiction in matters concerning the oversight
of narcotics and psychotropic substances, and desiring that the international organization
participants in that oversight act within the United Nations framework.
Reaffirming the guiding principles of the current Treaties concerning oversight of

narcotics and psychotropic substances and the oversight monitoring they provide,
()
Recognizing also the importance of strengthening and intensifying efficient legal

means of international cooperation in criminal matters to suppress international drug
trafficking criminal activities,
Agree to the following:
()
Article 2.
1. The purpose of this present Convention is to promote cooperation among the

Parties so they may confront with greater efficacy the diverse aspects of the illegal
trafficking of narcotics and psychotropic substances which have an international
dimension. In fulfillment of the obligations contracted with this present Convention, the
Parties shall adopt the necessary measures, including those of a legislative and administrative
nature, in accordance with basic provisions of their respective internal legal regulations.
2. The Parties will fulfill their obligations derived from this present Convention.
- Therefore, the cooperation between Governments is vital to confront the diverse

manifestations of transnational organized crime, which does not respect borders, and to the
contrary, takes advantage of them to make the detection of their actions more difficult, from
the very moment of its planning, the same as to avoid action from law enforcement once said
acts have been committed, and in many cases, to hide the product of the crime, and therefore,
it is important to keep in mind that the repression of crimes in order to protect citizens and
maintain peace and public order constitute essential objectives in all organized societies and
that the fight to attain these objectives cannot be restricted currently to national limits,
because it is evident that the activities of transnational organized crime not only affect
countries individually considered, but also the international community as a whole.
That both Mexico as well as the United States of America are part of the United
Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, in which the international
62
0000000525
REDACTED
1438
community demonstrated the political will to confront a worldwide problem with an answer
which was not just regional, but universal, in which the intention of the nations to take on the
problematics about if criminal activity crosses borders, action on the part of the law has to do
the same thing. That the rule of law cannot be limited to using solely national means, that if
organized crime undermines the progress and the human rights of a society, it takes
advantage of the opening and the possibilities offered for worldwide activity to achieve its
purposes, so then the organized community should take advantage of those same factors to
defend the human rights of their peoples, and therefore the cited Convention is a document to
confront the scourge of criminal activity as a worldwide problem, precisely strengthening
international cooperation. In that sense, in the Preamble of said Multilateral Convention, the
following statements were recorded:--------------------------------------------------------------------
The General Assembly
()
Profoundly worried by the adverse financial and social repercussions derived

from the activities of organized crime, and convinced of the urgent need to strengthen
cooperation to prevent and combat more efficiently those activities on a national, regional
and international level,
Observing with profound concern the growing ties between transnational organized
crime and the crimes of terrorism and considering the United Nations Charter and the
relevant resolutions from the General Assembly,
Resolved to impede persons involved in transnational organized crime find

refuge proposing that they be tried where said crimes are committed, and increasing
cooperation on an international level,
Firmly convinced that the United Nations Convention Against Transnational

Organized Crime will constitute an efficient document and the legal framework necessary for
international cooperation with its sights set on combatting, among other things, criminal
activities such as money laundering, corruption, illegal trafficking of species of wild flora
and fauna in danger of extinction, crimes against cultural wealth and the growing
connections between transnational organized crime and terrorism crimes, ()
Therefore, as has been defined in the realm of International Law, both the United
Mexican States and the United States of America, have contracted several obligations in
matters of cooperation against drug trafficking by signing international documents which
reflect the concern of both Governments given the need to protect the life and health of their
respective societies against the grave effects of drug trafficking and the social phenomena
that said activity brings with it, accepting that these conducts should be attacked in an
integral fashion, because both countries have recognized that the different aspects of drug
trafficking threaten the security and the essential interests of each Government, due to which
they committed to mutually offer to each other the necessary cooperation to effectively
63
0000000526
REDACTED
1439
combat drug trafficking and drug addiction, given its circumstances as an international
phenomenon.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That the damage which drug trafficking activities cause to the populations of different
Countries, such as the commercializing of cocaine and other psychotropic substances, in its
various stages, from its production, sale, distribution and even its consumption, induces the
committing of other crimes of a violent nature, and which affect the normal
development of children and adults, in addition to endangering the lives of large groups
within society affecting the lives of nations, and therefore our country has highlighted the
importance of combatting the criminal groups dedicated to trafficking drugs which cause so
much harm to society.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- That drug trafficking has grave implications which affect the fabric of society
and social co-existence due to the violence and criminality it produces, derived from the
confrontation of criminal groups to control markets and territories, and therefore, countries
have to dedicate greater economic resources to provide care for addiction, prevention and
rehabilitation.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- As a result, international cooperation in applying the law has been recognized as a

distinctive characteristic of civilizations where crimes cannot go unpunished simply because
the alleged perpetrators hide behind a border, and therefore illegal activities such as
terrorism, trafficking illegal drugs, human trafficking, among others, are committed by
criminal organizations which act without respecting borders, or rather, borders are
used by them as a convenient means to escape from justice, which is the reason that the
worlds nations recognize the need to cooperate in the fight against crime and to pursue
criminals.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- That in compliance with the international commitments agreed to by the

Government of the United Mexican States, it would be contrary to them, to grant full and
sole jurisdiction to national authorities, since in accordance with the United Nations
Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, any Government which is a Party to
this multilateral document will be able to establish its jurisdiction to hear a case from the
agreement of one or more individuals to commit a serious crime with a purpose that bears a
direct or indirect relationship with the obtention of a financial or other benefit of a material
nature, and when it is thus prescribed by internal law, that involves an act perpetrated by one
of the participants to advance that agreement or which involves the participation of an
organized criminal group, and it is committed outside of its territory with thoughts to commit
a serious crime inside its territory----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Therefore the tool of international extradition is the highest expression of

cooperation in matters of fighting crime between countries, which allows a Government to
arrest and hand over an individual in custody who is in its territory to another Government
who requests him/her for the purposes of subjecting said individual to a prosecution or to
comply with an imposed punishment, and therefore international legal cooperation both in
64
0000000527
REDACTED
1440
the executive and judicial branches of Governments, are the most important links in the fight
against international crime, especially concerning drug trafficking crimes.-----------------------
In light of what is stated above, this Ministry takes into consideration the fact
that the crimes for which the extradition of the now extradited individual is requested, have
the distinction of being transnational crimes, which signifies that it goes beyond the
borders of just one country, therefore it is important to keep in mind that transnational crime
essentially differs from local or common crimes, insofar as the use of market structures and
the advance in communications between countries, since the former use the infrastructure of
economic, social, and cultural globalization to strengthen and increase their functionality,
and therefore this Ministry stresses that the international element appears when the criminal
conduct affects the security interests of the world community, as is precisely drug trafficking,
and violates recognized legal rights, as fundamental as the life and health of citizens, which
is the reason international law considers the conducts related to drug trafficking illegal and
incriminates in treaties and conventions the activities engaged in for that purpose, precisely
because of their repercussion and the harm caused in the populations of diverse countries---
The activities of which the indicted individual is accused which he

probably carried out as the leader of a criminal organization, had repercussions in diverse
nations, among them the requesting country, affecting the legal rights which protect the legal
regulations in the United States of America, since the activities of which the today extradited
individual is accused, were precisely conspiring with the purpose of importing, distributing
and possessing thousands of kilograms of cocaine, for which he directed the members of a
criminal organization to transport the narcotics, lease warehouses, construct a tunnel between
the Mexico and United States border, as well as to traffic hundreds of kilos of cocaine in
United States territory, in other words, his activities had repercussions in the requesting
country affecting the legal rights which also protect the regulations of the United States of
America, and therefore the conducts allegedly committed by Mr. JOAQUN GUZMN
LOERA are conducts of an international nature, which are principally characterized because
they have perforated and violated the legal order in more than one sovereign Government.-
For this reason it is specifically noted that global commitments exist

among the criminal law systems in all countries, such as those agreed to within the United
Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, which provides for the
characteristics of a transnational crime, stating among other things, that said crime is present
if it committed within one Country but involves the participation of an organized criminal
group which engages in criminal activities in more than one Country, as well as whether it
has substantial effects in the other Country, which is indicated in Articles 1 and 3, Point 2, b)
and d), which literally state:------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 1. Purpose. The purpose of the present Convention is to promote

cooperation to prevent and combat more efficiently transnational organized crime
Article 3. Scope of application ()
65
0000000528
REDACTED
1441
2. For the purposes of Paragraph 1 of this Article, the crime shall be of a

transnational nature.
() b) It is committed within just one Country but a substantial part of its

preparation, planning, direction or control is carried out in another Country
c) It is committed within just one Country but involves the participation of an

organized criminal group which engages in criminal activities in more than one
Country, or
d) It is committed in one Country but it has substantial effects in another Country.
Considering this, it is noteworthy that from the evidentiary elements sent by the
United States Government to support the request which is being decided, it may be inferred
that the agreement for trafficking cocaine and marijuana was carried out with the
participation of several members belonging to a criminal organization which engaged in
activities in more than one Country, because allegedly it is a transnational criminal
organization, and said organization could not be trafficking with seized cocaine, if said
organization had not removed it from and introduced it into diverse countries in which it
establishes its spheres of operation, for which the participation of diverse individuals who
conspire together and plan for the events which will permit them to achieve their objective is
necessary. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is relevant to underline the fact that the cited multilateral Convention establishes
that the Governments which are Parties shall adopt provisions leading to the optimum
application of this Convention insofar as possible, through international cooperation,
bearing in mind the adverse effects of organized crime on society in general and on
sustainable development in particular (Article 30).------------------------------------------------
Therefore the nations which signed this multilateral Convention agreed

to establish jurisdiction concerning the life of international crime, which was reflected in
Article 15 of the many times cited Palermo Convention, which literally states:------------------
Article 15
Jurisdiction
1. Each Participating Government shall adopt the measures which may be

necessary to establish its jurisdiction, concerning the crimes defined in accordance to
Article 5, 6, 8 and 23 of this Convention when:
a) The crime is committed in its territory, or

b) The crime is committed aboard a vessel which carries its flag, or an aircraft
registered in accordance with its laws at the moment the crime is committed.
66
0000000529
REDACTED
1442
2. Subject to what is provided in Article 4 of this Convention, a Participating

Government may also establish its jurisdiction to try cases for said crimes when:
a) The crime is committed against one of its citizens,
b) The crime is committed by one of its citizens or a person who is not
a citizen who has habitual residence in its territory; or
c) The crime:
i) Is one of those crimes defined in Accordance with Paragraph 1 of
Article 5 of this Convention and which is committed outside of its territory with the intention
to commit a felony within its territory,
ii) Is one of those crimes defined in accordance with ii) of Section b) in
Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of this Convention and is committed outside of its territory with
its sights set on its commission, within its territory of a crime defined in accordance with
i) or ii) of Section a) or i) from Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of this Convention.
()
The international community has observed the development of criminal

manifestations, which are transcendent not only in the classic national environment, but
cross borders. Said manifestations have peculiar characteristics which stand out within the
sphere of criminal figures, which form the so-called Organized Criminality, which has
presented itself and evolved in the world like a scourge which corrupts societys social,
political and economic foundations, and it is therefore necessary to understand and denounce
these realities, above all its criminal manifestations which breathe life into a transnational
type of crime which is committed in diverse countries at a different time and place, which
requires greater cooperation and effectiveness to reduce its occurrence. Considering this,
Transnational Crimes are those socially dangerous actions or omissions which have a marked
sphere of influence outside of the national environment, which although they may be
reprehensible according to national law, need international cooperation to be prosecuted
more effectively.
Therefore, transnational crimes are prosecutable and reprehensible by

national law, but that in their essence of directly or indirectly involving individuals of
diverse nationalities, as well as a multiplicity of nations, in addition to the nature of the
criminal acts, makes their prosecution solely by state security entities very difficult, making
necessary international cooperation for their effective repression, due to this transcendence
which crosses borders.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following this line of thought, this Ministry bears in mind that the
conducts allegedly employed by the criminal Organization headed by the now extradited
individual, did not have as their principal purpose to introduce narcotics to Mexico, given
that our country just served as an intermediary route, because the final destination was the
distribution of cocaine in the United States of America; meaning, in the transit process for
the cocaine towards United States territory, Mexico only represented a phase in the life cycle
in the crime of trafficking said narcotic, because presumably it is a transnational criminal
organization, and said organization could not traffic with narcotics if it does not extract them
from and introduce them into diverse countries in which it establishes its spheres of
67
0000000530
REDACTED
1443
operation, for which the participation of diverse individuals who conspire and plan the
events which will permit them to achieve their objective.--------------------------------------------
Foreseeing the above, in the Extradition Treaty between the United

Mexican States and the United States of America no provision at all exists which prohibits
extradition when the crime may not have been committed in its totality in the territory of the
Requesting Government, to the contrary, in Article 1, Number 2, a), it determines that when
the crime for which the extradition is requested has been committed outside the territory of
the Requesting Party, the Party to Whom the Request is Made shall grant the extradition if its
laws provide for the punishment of said crime committed in similar circumstances, provision
which literally states:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLE 1
Obligation to Extradite
1. ()
2. When the crime may have been committed outside of the territory of the
Requesting Party, the Party to Whom the Request is Made shall grant the
extradition if:
a) Its laws provide a punishment for said crime committed in similar
circumstances; or
b) The individual being requested is a citizen of the requesting Party, and said
Party has jurisdiction in accordance with its laws to judge said individual.
Therefore, it is considered that the Mexican Government, the Party to

Whom the Request is Made, in its legislation contemplates said circumstance, since in
accordance with Article 2, I of the Criminal Code for the Federal District in Matters of Local
Jurisdiction and for the entire Republic in matters of Federal Ordinary Jurisdiction,
established that said punitive order shall be applied for the crimes which are commenced,
prepared or committed abroad, when they produce or the intent is that they have effects
on the Republics territory, said provision literally states as follows:--------------------------
Article 2. It shall be applied, also:
I. For those crimes that are commenced, prepared or committed

abroad, when they produce or the intent is that they have effects on the Republics
territory.
Said precept is closely connected with Article 7 of the Federal Criminal

Procedures Code which literally states:-----------------------------------------------------------------
Article 7. In the cases of Articles 2, 4, and 5, Paragraph V, of

the Criminal Code, the court in whose territorial jurisdiction the accused is found
shall have jurisdiction; but if the defendant were to be abroad, it shall be to
request extradition, to conduct and to rule on the prosecution, the court with the
68
0000000531
REDACTED
1444
same category in the Federal District, before whom the Attorney Generals
Office files for the criminal prosecution.
Given the above, Mexican laws state that said laws may be applicable
to those crimes which are commenced, prepared or committed abroad, when they produce or
the intent is that they have effects on the Republics territory, which would be this present
case given that, a contrario sensu, apparently the crimes were prepared outside of the United
States.
In the event that the alleged criminal is not to be found in the national
territory, it is possible to request an international extradition, as happens a contrario sensu,
bearing in mind that the repercussion of said illegal conducts would be precisely in United
States territory.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the hypothesis contemplated in the cited Article 1, Number

2, a) of the cited Bilateral Extradition Treaty, since the Party to Whom the Request is Made,
meaning, the Government of Mexico, contemplates in its laws prosecution to punish a crime
committed in similar circumstances as those illegal crimes alleged against the now extradited
individual, therefore this Ministry, takes into account that for the purpose of avoiding
impunity, Governments establish their jurisdiction, not in relation to the interest of
individuals, but rather in the interest of society, which through the jurisdictional authority
established by the Government, complies with the unavoidable duty of reestablishing legal
order.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the above, from the records it may be inferred that the now
extradited individual is accused in the Requesting Country of directing a conspiracy, which
with several individuals agreed to transport cocaine and other drugs, from other nations
towards the United States of America, and therefore it is evident that in all the places in
which the conduct of coordinating the transport of the drug was engaged in, with other
individuals members of the criminal organization of which he was a part, the crime of
conspiracy was committed which is attributed to him. Therefore, that criminal conduct of
having conspired with other individuals to achieve their goal, was also carried out in said
country to the north, since in United States territory and in diverse countries members of the
criminal organization were to be found.----------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, it is evident that against the now extradited individual a Criminal

Prosecution was commenced in the United States of America, meaning that, in the
Requesting Government an investigation was begun for the acts of which the now extradited
individual is accused, and it obtained an arrest warrant against him, and therefore the
extradition of the extradited individual legally has merit. As support for the all the above, is
the Sole Binding Precedent issued by the Fifth Collegiate Court in Criminal Matters in the
Federal District, which indicates that if it is manifest that the requested individual formed
part of a conspiracy, since he agreed with various individuals to import and distribute
narcotics, in the territory of more than one country, it is evident that the accused
individual committed the illegal act which is attributed to him in the countries involved, and
69
0000000532
REDACTED
1445
therefore in this case, any of the respective governments could have jurisdiction to try
the defendant for the conducts of which he is accused, and therefore, it will be proper to
grant extradition to the Government of the country which has taken preliminary
jurisdiction over the acts or requested his arrest based on the respective Treaty, which
literally states:
EXTRADITION, IF THE INDIVIDUAL REQUESTED COMMITTED THE

CRIME ATTRIBUTED TO HIM IN DIVERSE COUNTRIES, IT WILL BE
LEGALLY PROPER TO GRANT IT TO THE GOVERNMENT WHICH HAS
TAKEN PRELIMINARY JURISDICTION OVER THE ACTS OR WHICH
REQUESTED HIS ARREST BASED ON THE RESPECTIVE TREATY. In Article 7 of
the International Extradition Law, the cases and conditions are established in which the
requested handing over of the individual legally would not have legal merit, among them,
Paragraph IV of Number cited provides that said circumstance occurs if the crime was
committed within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Republics Courts. If it is manifest that
the individual requested formed part of a conspiracy, since he agreed with various
individuals to transport narcotics in the territory of diverse countries, it is evident that
the defendant committed the illegal act of which he is accused in all those locations,
and therefore in this case, any of the respective governments could have jurisdiction to
try the defendant for the conducts of which he is accused, and therefore, it will be legally
proper to grant extradition to the Government of the country which has taken preliminary
jurisdiction over the acts or requested his arrest based on the respective Treaty.
All of the above is based on the fundamental purposes of international cooperation in

the application of the law, to prosecute and punish those responsible for said illegal crimes
which affect the international community, and therefore to deny the granting of extradition
for various causes stipulated in the Treaty, would lack merit insofar as the needs for mutual
assistance in the international application of criminal law, which should be applied to any
individual accused of committing a crime, without considering his or her nationality, in a
primary way with the application of the Governments laws in which the illegal crime was
committed, and as an exception, by the country in which the fugitive from justice is found,
but always respecting the sovereignty of both Governments.-------------------------------------
I. FINAL CONCLUSION.
Therefore, the Ministry considers that keeping in mind the opinion

issued by the Attorney General of the Republics Office, and in compliance with the
international obligations contracted by the Mexican Government, it has legal merit to grant
consent to the Government of the United States of America to the Exception to the
Principle of Specialty, so that Mr. JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA may be prosecuted at
the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in the Fourth Superseding
Indictment with Case Number 09-CR-466(SLT)(S-4), presented on May 11, 2016, since the
request formulated is found to be appropriate to Article 17, Number 1, c) of the Bilateral
International Extradition Treaty, keeping in mind also that the same as these previously cited
70
0000000533
REDACTED
1446
Treaties, these are international instruments of which Mexico is a party and that they are the
Supreme Law of the Union in accordance with Article 133 of the Political Constitution of the
United Mexican States.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, it is important to reiterate that this Ministry does not prejudge

concerning the guilt or innocence of the extradited individual in the commission of the
additional crimes of which he is accused given that the present Agreement does not decide a
criminal case, but rather a request formulated by a Foreign Government in accordance to
what is agreed in the applicable Bilateral Treaty, and therefore at the proper time the
extradited individual may present his side in accordance with what may be in his interests
before the Court which is requesting him, as well as to present probative evidence and other
documents which in his judgment may refute his participation in the acts for which he is
incriminated, which is not the subject of this present Agreement, since as has been explained
in the previous Legal Conclusions, the intervention of this Ministry consists solely in
verifying whether the conditions of the Treaty are fulfilled, and the evidences presented by
the United States Government satisfy the requirements required by the Extradition Treaty
between the United Mexican States and the United States of America, since they contain the
necessary indications that accredit that the Government of the United States of America has
an additional case against the extradited individual for crimes different from those for which
his international extradition was granted, since the Requesting Government has presented
sworn statements, witness statements and photographs, evidentiary elements which were
analyzed, qualified and evaluated by this Ministry to grant the authorization requested.-------
In view of what has been stated above, the Ministry considers that in compliance with
the international obligations contracted by the Mexican Government, it has legal merit
to grant its CONSENT TO THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE OF SPECIALTY
to the Government of the United States of America, so that it may prosecute Mr.
JOAQUN GUZMN LOERA, alias Joaqun Guzmn Loera, alias Joaqun
Archivaldo Guzmn Loera, alias Joaqun Archivaldo Guzmn-Loera, alias Chappo
Guzmn, alias Chapo Guzmn, alias Chapo, alias El Chapo, alias El
Arquitecto, alias El Architecto, alias Gilberto Osuna, alias Max Aragn, alias
Jos Luis Ramrez, alias El Rpido, alias Shorty, alias El Seor, alias El Jefe,
alias Nana, alias Ap, alias Pap, alias Inge, alias El Viejo, alias El Primo,
alias El Padrino, alias To, at the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, United States of America, within the Fourth Superseding Indictment, Case
Number 09-CR-466(SLT)(S-4) presented on May 11, 2016, for additional crimes than
those for which his international extradition was granted, because the cited request for
consent, is found to be appropriate to Article 17, Number 1, c), from the Bilateral
Extradition Treaty, and therefore it is to be agreed and is:-------------------------
AGREED:
FIRST.- That the Minister of Foreign Affairs has legal standing to decide in
this present matter, in accordance with what is stated in the previous
Legal Foundations I.--------------------------------------------------------------------
71
0000000534
REDACTED
1447
SECOND.- The Government of the United Mexican States GRANTS ITS

CONSENT to the Government of the United States of America to the Exception to
the Rule of Specialty in terms of what is agreed to in to Article 17, Number 1, c) of
the Bilateral International Extradition Treaty so that Mr. JOAQUN GUZMN-
LOERA, alias Joaqun Guzmn Loera, alias Joaqun Archivaldo Guzmn Loera,
alias Joaqun Archivaldo Guzmn-Loera, alias Chappo Guzmn, alias Chapo
Guzmn, alias Chapo, alias El Chapo, alias El Arquitecto, alias El
Architecto, alias Gilberto Osuna, alias Max Aragn, alias Jos Luis Ramrez,
alias El Rpido, alias Shorty, alias El Seor, alias El Jefe, alias Nana,
alias Ap, alias Pap, alias Inge, alias El Viejo, alias El Primo, alias El
Padrino, alias To, may be prosecuted at the Federal District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, United States of America, within the Fourth Superseding
Indictment, Case Number 09-CR-466(SLT)(S-4) presented on May 11, 2016, for the
crimes of:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) in Charge One, having been involved in a continuing criminal
enterprise, in violation of what is stipulated in Sections 848(a), 848(b),
848(c) and 848(e)(1)(A) of Title 21 of the United States Code;---------

controlled substances, to wit: five or more kilograms of cocaine, one
kilogram or more of heroin, 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and
one thousand kilograms or more of marijuana, knowingly and with the
intention that said controlled substances were going to be illegally
imported to the United States from a location abroad, in violation of what
is stipulated in Sections 963, 959(a), 960 (b)(1)(A), 960(b)(1)(B)(ii), 960
(b)(1)(G) and 960 (b)(1)(H) of Title 21 of the United States Code;--------
(3) in Charge Three, conspiracy to import a controlled substance to the

United States, to wit: five kilograms of cocaine knowingly and with the
United States from a location abroad, in violation of what is stipulated in
Sections 963, 959(a), 960(a)(1) and 960(b)(1)(B)(ii) of Title 21 of the
United States Code;------------------------------------------------------------------
distribute a controlled substance: to wit, five kilograms or more of cocaine,
in violation of what is stipulated in Sections 846, 841(a), and
841(b)(1)(A)(ii)(II) of Title 21 of the United States Code;---------------------
(5 to 15) in Charges Five to Fifteen, international distribution of a

controlled substance, to wit: five kilograms or more of cocaine having the
intention and knowing that said substance was going to be illegally
imported to the United States, in violation of what is stipulated in Sections
72
0000000535
REDACTED
1448
959(a), 959(c), 960(a)(3) and 960(b)(1)(B)(ii) of Title 21 of the United

States Code;---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(16) in Charge Sixteen, of carrying, brandishing and discharging one or

more firearms, one of which was a machine gun, during and related to one
or more drug trafficking crimes, to wit: the accusations in the crimes in
Charges One to Fifteen, in violation to what is stipulated in Sections
924(c)(1)(A)(i), 924 (c)(1)(A)(ii), 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) and 924 (c)(1)(B)(ii) of
Title 18 of the United States Code;------------------------------------------------
(17) in Charge Seventeen, conspiracy to launder United States currency,

knowing that said United States currency constituted the profits from
trafficking drugs through: (a) the transfer and the delivery of drug
trafficking profits with the intention to promote carrying out drug
trafficking with the intention to promote the continuance of drug
trafficking and to hide and disguise the nature, the location, the origin and
the ownership of the profits from the drug sales; and (b) the transport,
transmission and transfer of some monetary instruments and funds from
the United States to Mexico and Colombia, with the intention to promote
the carrying out drug trafficking and to disguise the nature, the location,
the source and the ownership of the profits from the drug sales, in violation
of what is stipulated in Sections 1956(h), 1956(a)(1)(A)(i), 1956(a)(1)(B),
1956(a)(2)(A), and 1956(a)(2)(B) of Title 18 of the United States Code.----
methamphetamine are Category II controlled substances, according to Section 812,
from Title 21 of the United States Code
THIRD.- This Agreement is to be published to the Embassy of the United States of

America in Mexico, to the Republics Attorney Generals Office, and to the Mexican
Consulate General in New York, United States of America, for the legal purposes
which that may entail, through the General Legal Affairs Department.-------------------
FOURTH.- Notify Mr. JOAQUN GUZMAN LOERA of this present Agreement,

through the Mexican Consulate General in New York, United States of America.------
THUS IT WAS AGREED, AND THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

SIGNS, AT MEXICO CITY, ON THE NINETEENTH DAY OF THE MONTH OF
JANUARY, IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN.-----------------------
(Signed illegible)
DR. LUIS VIDEGARAY CASO.
73
0000000536
:~ ~J 'z s ~.
TRIBUNAL DE DISTRITO DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS

PARR EL DISTRIT~ DESTE DE TEXAS
DIVISION EL PASO r
r
f
ES; .~iQS'~,::: ~, ~ , ^ `, ~ DE AMERICA
W +-0:~~,
' ~-~~,~~
-~~ ..~
v~~ ti
~ to CASO CRIMINAL EP-12-CR-849-FM
~.
,~
f1;/i~
VS
J4AQUIN GUZMAN LOERA DECLARACION ,IURADA EN APUYO

Alias "Chapo" DE SOLTCITUD DE EXTRADICIbN
DE CONFORMIDAD CON 28 U.S.C.
y otros 1746
Acusados
Yo, Jesus Manuel I'ierro Mendez, proporciono bajo pena de perjurio la siguiente declaracion,
verdadera y correcta:
1. Soy ciudadano de Mexico.
2. Fui arrestado en los Estados Unidos en octubre de 2008. Fui condenado por delitos de
tr~co de drogas y actualmente me encuentro purgando una condena.
3. Aproximadamente de 1997 a 2048 trahaje como official de policia en Ciudad .ivarez,
~Ia~huahua, Mexico. Aproximadamente en 2005 empece a trabajar para una organization
de narcofiraficantes cornandada por SERGTO GARDUNO-ESCOBEDO. Yo apoyaba a la
organization proporcionando trabajo de inteligencia, asi como seguridad para los
cargamentos de drogas. GARDUNO-ESCOBEDO estaba asociado con e1 Cartel de
~`inaloa y se repartaba a GERMAN MAGANA-PASOS, tambien conocdo como "Paisa".
S trabajaba directamente pars ISMAEL ZAMBADA GARCIA, en

~~~, MAGANA-PASO
:~;,;;q~;,;,j ~~,actividades de narcotrafico, lavado de dinero y trafico de arenas a nombre del Cartel de
v,~..,..~;,; hf~
y~ ~.'r~ Sinaloa. Yo zne encontre con GARDUNO-ESCOBEDO en numerosas ocasiones durante
~~'~.:,~
I,A .J i, i
-.~~. ..~;,,,~~-,t~~mpo en que trabaje con esta organizacibn para discutir actividades de narcotrafico. ~
1
~Eh~E:~'cf-~E.. E..~h:
~ ~l E i~f ~I~ N::
~~Ctrc~c, t ~~~.
~~ 2 S<
dos medios hermanos, JESUS RODRIGO FIERRO-RAMIREZ y ARTURO
quienes tamhien trabajaban pars la organizaci~in de GARDUNO-
. Otros miembros de la organizaci6n de GARDUNO-ESCOBEDO incluyen
DE LA O LOPEZ, ARTURO SHOWS URQUIDI y DAVID SANCHE2-
EZ. DAVID SANCHEZ-HERN,e.NDEZ tenia la reputacibn de ser un buen
jefe bajo GARDUNO-ESCOBBDO, ya que Ies pagaba bien a sus trabajadores y protegia
GARDUNO-ESCOBCDO tenia a su cargo dos escuadrones de asesinos,
uno de eilos comandado por FIERRO-R.AMIREZ y el otro por DAVIll SANCHEZ-
HERNANDEZ. LOZANO-M~NDEZ era el guardaespaldas personal de GAR.DUNO-
ESCOBEDO y el responsable de sobornar a la policia municipal a nombre de
GARDUNO-ESCOBEDO.
La orga~izacion de GARDUNO-ESCOBEDO tr~caba cocaina. La cocaina de la
erganizacion era marcada con el personaje de caricaturas "Memin Penguin". La
GARDUNO-ESCOBEDO recibia cargamentos de cocaina de
aproximadamente tres toneladas cada una, los cuales llegaban en camiones

tanque a
Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. Estos cargamentos eran divididos en cargamentos m'as
pequ~nos
pars ser enviados a varios ]ugares en los Esta.dos Unidos. T,a cocaina de
la organizaeion
pertenecia a GARDUNO-ESCOBEDO, MAGANA-PASO
S y ZAMBADA GARCIA.
FTERRp_RpMIREZ, LOZANO-MENDEZ,
D~ LA O LbP~Z y DAVID SANCHEZ-
.4
'i
ANDEZ traficaban la cocaina a su hombre. Entre 2006 y 2007, FIERRO-
embarcaba aproximadamente 40 kilogramos de cocaina por semana a

s A
ciudades en los Estados Unidos. La organizacion de GARDUNO-ESCOBEDO ;~?;,

`k
;~
z
c-Y K...
~ ~-~~ ~ 5,
millones de dcilares de ganancia de la venta de drogas en los Estados
eran transportados a la organizacion en Mexico.

.~~
yo estuve presente en una bodega en Ciudad Juarez con GARDUNO-
DAVID SANCHEZ-HERNANDEZ, DE LA O LbPEZ, SHOWS
I, FI~RRO-RAMIREZ, LOZANO-MENDEZ y otros, cuando tuvimos que
descargar r~.pidamente un cargamento de coca~na de un trailer debido a que los medio de
~ comunicaci6n llegaron y habian llamado a to policia. El cargamento fue descargado con
~xito del trailer y cargado en otros vehiculos, los cuales salieron de la bodega justo en el
momento en que llego la policia y arrestb a cinco de Ios leis trabajadores de CiARDUNO-
E~COBEDO, quienes habian sido dejados atras.
Aproximadamente en 2007, LOZANO-MENDEZ me pidio ayuda para la transportaci6n
de cocaina en Ciudad Juarez, la cual habia sido cargada en un trailer de plataforma. A
peticibn de LOZANU-MENDEL, cerre el acceso al trafico de automoviles a to largo de
rota del camibn, para facilitar su transporte. El trailer de plataforma llevaba 300
de cocaina y ese dia se hicieron cinco viajes en Ciudad Juarez para
un total de 1,500 kilogramos de cocaina.
fines de 2006 y principios de 2007, LOZANO-M~NDEZ tambien me pidib apoyo para
de las ganancias de las dxogas. A solicitud de LOZANO-MENDEZ, to
en un auto de policia. LOZANO-M~NDEZ coloco tres bolsas negras en la cajueia
las cuales conienian mas de $1,000,000 en efectivo. Despues transports a
~-MENDEZ y el dinero a una reunibn con un individuo desconocido para mi.
pios o a mediados de 2007, empec~ a mover cargamentos de cocafna a
Indiana, para FiF,RRO-RAMIREZ I.OZANO-MENDEZ, DAVID
3
25
.. ;. r;
~~
O-
~,NDEZ y DE LA O LOPEZ. Yo recibia drdenes de FTERR
apolis y para
y de LOZANO-M~NDEZ para establecer cantactos en Indian
coordinar Ia
cargamentos de drogas a esa Ciudad. Tambien se me pidib
apolis a nombre
leccion de las ganancias procedentes de la yenta de drogas en Indian
ERNANDEZ y
de FI~RRO-R.AMIREZ, LOZANO-MENDEZ, DAVID SANCHEZ-H
cocaina a Indianapolis,
DE LA O LOPEZ. Yo particip~ en varios cargamentos de
de 40 kilogramos y un
incluyendo un cargamento de 25 kilogramos, un cargamento
a que pertenecia a
cargamento de 6 kilogramos. Los cargamentos incluian cocain
ERNANDEZ y DE
FTERRC)-RAMIREZ, LOZANO-MENDEZ, DAVID SANCHEZ-H
de la yenta de drogas del
LA O LbPEZ. Yo hice arreglos para el regreso de las ganancias
, pero las ganancias deI
cargamento de 25 kilogramos y del cargamento de 40 kilogramos
ades policiacas de los
cargamento de seis kilogramos fueron confiscadas por las autorid
que estas fueran enviadas
Estados Unidos, aproximadamente en agosto de 2007, antes de
a la organizacion.
MIREZ, proporcionando
10. A fines de 2007 o principios de 2008, ayude a FIERRO-Rf1
persona le debia dinero a
informacion sobre el dueno de Romeo's Bar en El Paso. Esta
o de aproximadam:ente
FIERRQ-RAMIREZ por su participacibn en un'cargamento perdid
AMIR~Z y a GARDUNO-
150 kilogramos de cocaina que pertenecia a FIERRO-R
de revision en Siena
ESCOBEDO, confiscado por la Patrulla Fronteriza en un panto
La informacion que yo le
Blanca, Texas aproximadamente en agosto de 2007.
a la descripci6n fisica del dueno del bar, la

.,~~W~ ~.
a`~~~~, I~J~' roporcion~ a FIER.RO-RAMTREZ anclui
ayudarian a localizarlo. Yo se que
`'~~~~~escripcion de su vehiculo y otros detalles que le
1`~w~_~~4Y J
~V
./
. .1 ~ ~.- ., ,i
~ ;;
~'LjE;t. Ei,.~1
' ~hi~F;Ai. ;;,~~ 4
~~ t R.m ~ ~- ., ._ _ _
~Z 5 ~
c~~ p. .. .
use esta infoi7nacibn que yo le proporcione para buscar al dueno del
conocimiento sobre si fue localizado.
periodo de tiempo, la violencia escal6 entre la orgarzizacibn de GARDUNO-
y elementos del Cartel de Jufixez para obtener y proteger corredores
lucrativos de tr~.fico de drogas. Por to tanto, GARDUNO-ESCOBED~ y otros miembros
de la organization, incluyendo a FIERRO-RAMIREZ, LOZANO-MENDEZ, DAVID
SANCHEZ-HERNANDEZ y DE LA O LOPEZ obtuvieron arenas para ayudar en la
guerra contra el Cartel de Juarez. LOZANO-MENDEZ tuvo un papel activo en esto y a
LOZANO-MENDEZ y a su escuadr6n de asesinos se les encomendb la tarea de
enfocarse en los miembros de la pandilla Barrio Azteca, quienes actuaban Como
ejecutores para el Cartel de Juarez.
12. A principios de 2008, en medio de la creciente violencia cn Ciudad 3u~rez entre los
de Sinaloa y de Juarez, MAGANA-PASOS ratiro la organization de
GARDUNO-ESCOBEDO de Ciudad Juarez. Antes de esto DAVID SANCHEZ-
HERNANDEZ se reunib con MAGANA-PASOS y hablo mal de la manera en que
GARDUNO-ESCOBEDO manejaba la iucha por el poder contra el Cartel de Juarez. Yo
creo que esta conversacibn entre DAVID SANCHEZ-HERNI~NDEZ y MAGANA-
PASOS contribuyo en ei traslado de la organizaeion do GARDUNO-ESCOBEDO a
diferentes plazas en Mexico. DAVID SANCHEZ-HERNA.ND~Z se fue a la Ciudad de
:~.jf~Mexico.
~~r 2008, MAK10 NIJNEZ-MEZA, tambien conocido como "Mayito", se convirtio en el
teniente de JOAQUIN GUZMAN LOERA, tambi~n conocido como "Chapo".
GUZMAN LOERA es uno de los cabecillas del Cartel de Sinaloa. GUZMAN LOERA
`r~~+~ r
'":.e.
5
~z s ~
~~
~ ~3 r ~
NIJN~Z-MEZA y a otros a Ciudad Juarez, para no perder la plaza al
~:
Yo conoci a MARIO NiJN~Z-M~ZA cuando llegb a Ciudad Suarez.
en Ciudad Juarez, MARIO NUNEZ-MEZA era el responsable de
actividades del Cartel de Sinaloa, incluyendo el tr~fico de drogas, La
y el transporte de las ganancias de drogas y la compra de arenas, usadas en la
guerra para sostenex uno de los corredores del Cartel de Sinaloa, critico para ei transporte
de drogas hacia los Estados Unidos.
14. AMADO NiIIV~Z-M~ZA, hermano de MARIO NUNEZ-MEZA, tambien conocido
como "Flaco" tenia su base en Durango, en donde comandaba un grupo de
narcotrafcantes y trabajaba para asegurar el control de la Carretera Panamericana que
usaba el Cartel de Sinaloa como rota de transporte. Yo me reuni con AME1D0 NLINEZ-
ME7,A para discutir las actividades del Cartel de Sinaloa.
IS. Los socios de MARIO NIJNEZ-MEZA incluyen a Tose Antonio Torres Marrufo,
ADRIAN AVILA-RAMIR~~, tambien conocido como "Bam Bam" y a GABINO
SALAS-VALENCIANO. AVILA-RAMIREZ particip6 en actor de violencia a nombre
del Cartel de Sinaloa, para "linnpiar" la plaza de Juarez de rivales miembros del Cartel de
Ju~.rez. AVILA-RAMIREZ tambi~n era el responsable de coordinar el transporte de
cocaine de El Paso, Texas a otros lugares en los Estados Unidos pare su distribucibn. En
2008, AVILA-RAMTREZ trabajaba directamente pare MARIO NtJNEZ-MEZA y recibia
de MA.RIO NUNEZ-MEZA aproximadamente cincuenta , kilogramos c!e cocaine cede
~~~~i~ee dins. Aproximadamente en 2008, recibi un AK-47, el coal me entreg6 AVILA-
-% A~v1IKEL en una camioneta pick-up Blanca, en eI estacionamiento de un Centro
~~~ .. D
i ~ w r: e ~ ~ a ~
~,
z
~~m~cial en El Pa
so, Texas. Posteriorm ~'~ F _
ente yo envi~ el are .~
na a Ciudad Juarez
apoyar 1a guerra contin Para
ua del cartel.
la b'. Yo cgnoci por pr
imera vez a SALAS-
VALENCIANO dura
nte una reunion con
`' Ontiveros-Araxnbul Fernando
~:=., a en Culiacan, Mex
ico. SALAS-VALEN
CIANO era un trafic
ante de
~~~
?'~~ cocairia y de marihuana cuya ba
se de operacibn esta
ba en el Valle de Ju
-..
~ r ~~.:-. Cui~atl.~Juarez. E firez al sureste de
l propbsito de la reun
ion era desarrollar un
a estrategia para de
los lugares controlados smantelar
por la organizacibn
de trafico de drogas
de Escajeda en el
de Juarez y para que Valle
SALAS-VALENCIA
NO tomara el control
del Valle de Juarez
Ontiveros-Ar~mbula. para
17. Una vez yo estu

ve presente cuando
GUZ'MAN LOERA
entregb aproximad
250,000 en efectivo a amente
Ontiveros-Arambula
para comprar arenas de
fuego pars sus tropa
Ontiveros-Arambula co s.
mpro las arenas de
fuego en los Estado
s Unidos, las cuale
entregb a miembros de s
l Cartel de Sinaloa en
Mexico. Ontiveros-Ar
ambula fue arrestado
posteriormente y fue co
ndenado en los Estado
s Unidos.
18. Uno de mis sn
cios en Ciudad Juarez
era VALENTiN SAEN
Z DE LA CRUZ,
tambien conocia po a quien
r el apodo de "Lic,"
SAENZ DE LA CR
UZ era un trafican
drogas quien en un pr te de
incipio estaba asociad
o con el Cartel de Juar
ez y despues se alib
el Cartel de Sinaloa con
. SAENZ DE LA CRU
Z crcia que cl Cartcl
de Juarez cobraba
por permitir el nn mucho
ovimiento de cargam
entos de droga en Ci
udad Juarez. Yo se
S A.ENZ DE LA que
CRUZ trabajo para
AMADO NIJNEZ-M
~. ~.. EZA y MARI4 NL
. :: ` 1~MEZA en 7NEZ-
sus actividades de tra
fico de drogas. En 20
08, SAENZ DE LA
~~ ' '~' ~~esacuerd CRUZ tuvo un
^`,;r, o con Torres Marrufo
Y '',~`' f y GUZMAN LOERA,
quienes no aprobaba
~`y=~' ~ de los n la estrategia
se
~. . . . cuestros de SAENZ DE LA CRUZ. Com
o resultado del conflic
:`.: .V ~ ` , r. to con GUZMAN
L ~
~~
7
~ C t~s `l' r~ c
2.5
ante independiente y se trasladG a ''' P

St1ENZ DE LA CRUZ se convirtio en trafic
DE L~1 CRUZ estaba en Costa
Jalisco. F,1 suministro de cocaina de SAENZ f .,
persona con JOAQUIN GUZMAN

describe anteriormente, me he reunido en
yito"), AMADO NIJNEZ-MEZA
("Chapo")m MARIO NI3NEZ-MEZA ("Ma
.~Y~~
O, SERUIO GAKDCJNO-ESCOBEDO,
("Flaco"), GABINO SALAS-VALENCIAN
RODRIGO FTERRO-RAMIREZ, ARTURO
DAVID SANCHEZ-HERNANDEZ, JESiJ5
L(~PEZ, ARTURO SHOWS URQIIIDI,
LOZANO-MENDEZ, MARIO DE I,A O
") y VALENTIN SAENZ DE LA CRUZ
ADRIAN ,AVILA-RAMTREZ ("Bam Bam
rafias de estos individuos, las cuales se
(i`~ic") y por Io tanto reconozco las ~ fotog
o sigue :
encuentran adjuntas a este declaracion com
ANEXO 1: Fotogra~a de JOAQUIN GUZMAN LOERA

ANEXO 2: Fotogra~ de MARIO NiJNEZ-MEZA
ANEXO 3: Fotografia de AMADO NIJNEZ-MEZA
O
ANEXO 4: Foto~rafia de GABINO SALAS-VALENCIAN
DUN O-E SCOBED O
ANEXO 5: Fotogr~a de SERGIO GAR
RNA NDE Z
AN~XO 6: Fotogr~a de DAVID SANCHEZ-HE
RAMIREZ
AN;~XO 7: Fotografia de JESUS RODRIGO ~IERRO-
EZ
ANEXO 8: Fotografia do ~~ZTURO LOZANO-MEIV~D
ANEXO 9: Fotografia de MARIO DE LA O LbPEZ
ANEXO 10: Fotogra~a de ARTURO SHOW URQUIDI
ANEXO 11: Fotogra~a de ADKTAN AVILA-RAMIREZ
CRUZ
ANEXO 12: Fotografia de VALENTIN SAENZ DE LA
o declaro bajo pena de perjurio que to anterior es verdadero y correcto.
,/I
% -
Jesus Manu ~ rro en ez
..,,~ ~
`. ti~oel~~ ~~1 1x,2012.
,~E+, f 3i~~~
8
-~~
i, Jesus Manuei Fierro Mendez, under penalty of perjury provide the following declaration,
True and Correct:
1. I am a citizen of Mexico.
2. I was arrested in the U.S. in October of 2008. I was sentenced for crimes of drug trafficking and
currently I am serving a sentence.
3. Approximately from 1997 to 2008 I worked as a police officer in the city of Juarez, Chihuahua,
Mexico. Approximately in 2005, I began working for a drug trafficking organization led by Sergio
Garduno-Escobedo. I helped the organization by providing intelligence work as well as security
for drug shipments. Garduno-Escobedo was associated with the Sinaloa Cartel and reported to
German Magana-Pasos, also known as "Paisa." Magana-Pasos worked directly for Ismael
Zambada Garcia, in drug trafficking activities, money laundering, and trafficking arms (firearms)
in the name of the Sinaloa Cartel. I met with Garduno-Escobedo on numerous occasions during
the time I worked with this organization to discuss drug trafficking activities.
4. I have two half-brothers, Jesus Rodrigo Fierro-Ramirez and Arturo Lozano Mendez, who also
worked for the Garduno-Escobedo organization. Other members of the Garduno-Escobedo
organization include Mario de la O Lopez, Arturo Shows Urquidi and David Sanchez-Hernandez.
David Sanchez-Hernandez had the reputation of being a good boss under Garduno-Escobedo
because he paid his workers well and protected their interests. Garduno-Escobedo was in charge
of two squadrons of assassins, one of them was commanded by Fierro-Ramirez and the other by
David Sanchez-Hernandez. Lozano-Mendez was the personal bodyguard of Garduno-Escobedo
and he was responsible for bribing the municipal police in the name of Garduno-Escobedo.
5. Garduno-Escobedo's organization trafficked cocaine. The organization's cocaine was stamped
(marked) with the cartoon character "Memin Pinguin." Garduno-Escobedo's organization
received cocaine shipment of approximately three tons each, of which, arrived in tank trucks to
Juarez, Mexico. These shipments were divided into smaller shipments to be sent to various
locations in the United States. The organization's cocaine belonged to Garduno-Escobedo,
Magana-Pasos and Zambada Garcia. Fierro-Ramirez, Lozano-Mendez, De la O Lopez and David
Sanchez Hernandez trafficked cocaine in its name. Between 2006 and 2007, Fierro-Ramirez
shipped approximately 40 kilograms of cocaine a week to different cities in the United States.
Garduno-Escobedo's organization also collected millions of dollars of profit, from the sale of
drugs in the United States, which was then transported to the organization in Mexico.
6. Atone time I was at a warehouse in Juarez city with Garduno-Escobedo, David Sanchez-
Hernandez, De La O Lopez, Shows Urquidi, Fierro-Ramirez, Lozano-Mendez and others, when we
had to quickly unload a cocaine shipment off a trailer because the media arrived and called the
police. The shipment was successfully unloaded from the trailer and loaded into other vehicles,
which left the warehouse exactly at the moment the police arrived and arrested five of the six of
Garduno-Escobedo's workers, which had been left behind.
7. Approximately in 2007, Lozano-Mendez asked me for help in transporting of cocaine in Juarez
city, which had been loaded on to a platform trailer. By Lozano-Mendez's request, I closed
automobile traffic access all along the route of the truck for easy transport. The platform trailer
carried 300 kilograms of cocaine and that day they made five trips in Juarez to transport a total
of 1,500 kilograms of cocaine.
1458
8. At the end of 2006 and the beginning of 2007, Lozano-Mendez also asked for help smuggling the
drug earnings. At Lozano-Mendez's request, I picked him up in a police car. Lozano-Mendez
placed three black bags in the trunk of the vehicle, which contained more than a $1,000,000 in
cash. Afterwards, I transported Lozano-Mendez and the money to a meeting with an individual
unknown to me.
9. In the beginning or the middle of 2007, I began moving shipments of cocaine to Indianapolis,
Indiana for Fierro-Ramirez, Lozano-Mendez, David Sanchez-Hernandez and De La 0 Lopez.
received orders from Fierro-Ramirez and from Lozano-Mendez to establish contacts in
Indianapolis and to coordinate drug shipments to that city. I was also asked to coordinate the
collection of the proceeding drug earnings in Indianapolis in the name of Fierro-Ramirez, Lozano-
Mendez, David Sanchez-Hernandez y De La O Lopez. I participated in several shipments of
cocaine to Indianapolis, including a shipment of 25 kilograms, a shipment of 40 kilograms and a
shipment of 6 kilograms. The shipments included cocaine that belonged to Fierro-Ramirez,
Lozano-Mendez, David Sanchez-Hernandez and De La O Lopez. I made arrangements for the
return of the drug earnings for the 25 kilogram load and the 40 kilogram load, but the earnings
of the shipment of the six kilograms were confiscated by the United States police authorities,
(United State Law Enforcement Authorities), approximately in August 2007, before they had
been sent to the organization.
10. At the end of 2007or beginning of 2008, I helped Fierro-Ramirez, providing information about
the owner of Romeo's Bar in EI Paso. This person owed Fierro-Ramirez money for his
participation in the lost shipment of approximately 150 kilograms of cocaine that belonged to
Fierro-Ramirez and Garduno-Escobedo, confiscated by the border patrol during a stop in Sierra
Blanca, Texas approximately in August 2007. The information that I provided to Fierro-Ramirez
included a physical description of the bar owner, a description of his vehicle and other details
that would help locate him. I know that Fierro-Mendez used that information that I provided to
look for bar's owner but I don't know if he was ever located.
11. During this period of time, the violence escalated between the Garduno-Escobedo's organization
and parts of the Juarez Cartel to obtain and protect lucrative drug trafficking corridors. Thus,
Garduno-Escobedo and other members of the organization including Fierro-Ramirez, Lozano-
Mendez, David Sanchez-Hernandez and De La 0 Lopez obtained weapons to help in the war
against the Juarez Cartel. Lozano-Mendez had an active role and Lozano-Mendez and his
squadron of assassins were commissioned to the task of focusing on the members of the Barrio
Azteca gang which were acting as executioners for the Juarez Cartel.
12. At the beginning of 2008 in the middle of the growing violence in Juarez between the Sinaloa
and Juarez Cartels, Magana-Pasos retreated the Garduno-Escobedo's organization from the city
of Juarez. Before this, David Sanchez-Hernandez met with Magana-Pasos and spoke poorly of
the way Garduno-Escobedo was handling the fight for power against the Juarez Cartel. I think
this conversation between David Sanchez- Hernandez and Magana-Palos contributed to the
transfer of the Garduno-Escobedo'S organization to the different plazas in Mexico. David
Sanchez-Hernandez left for Mexico City.
13. In 2008, Mario Nunez-Meza, also known as "Mayito" became first lieutenant for Joaquin
Guzman Loera, also known as "Chapo." Guzman Loera is one of the heads of the Sinaloa Cartel.
Guzman Loera sent Mario Nunez-Meza and others to Juarez City to avoid losing the plaza to the
Juarez Cartel. I met Mario Nunez-Meza when he arrived to the city of Juarez. When I was in
Juarez, Mario Nunez-Meza was in charge of supervising the Sinaloa Cartel's activities including
1459
drug trafficking, collection and transport of the drug earnings and the purchasing of weapons
used in the war to keep one of the critical corridors for the Sinaloa Cartel for the transport of
drugs to the United Sates.
14. Amado Nunez-Meza, brother of Mario Nunez-Meza, also known as "Flaco" was based in
Durango, where he led a group of drug traffickers and worked to secure control of the Pan
American highway that the Sinaloa Cartel used as a transport route. I met with Amado Nunez-
Meza to discuss the activities of the Sinaloa Cartel.
15. Mario Nunez-Meza's associates included Jose Antonio Torres Marrufo, Adrian Avila Ramirez,
a lso known as "Bam Bam" and Gabino Salas-Valenciano. Avila-Ramirez participated in acts of
violence in the name of the Sinaloa Cartel to "clean" the Juarez plaza of rival members of the
Juarez Cartel. Avila-Ramirez was also responsible of coordinating the transport of Cocaine from
EI Paso, Texas to other places in the United States for distribution. In 2008, Avila-Ramirez
worked directly for Mario Nunez-Meza and received from Mario Nunez-Meza approximately 50
kilograms of cocaine every 15 days. Approximately in 2008, I received an AK-47, which was given
to me by Avila-Ramirez in a white pick-up truck, in a mall parking lot in EI Paso, Texas.
Subsequently i sent the weapon to Juarez to support the cartel's ongoing war.
16. I met Salas-Valenciano for the first time during a meeting with Fernando Ontiveros-Arambula in
Culiacan, Mexico. Salas-Valenciano was a cocaine and marijuana trafficker whose base of
operations was in the Juarez Valley to the southeast of Juarez. The purpose of the meeting was
to develop a strategy to dismantle the places controlled by the Escajeda drug trafficking
organization in the Juarez Valley and so that Salas-Valenciano could take control of the Juarez
Valley for Ontiveros-Arambula.
17. One time I was present when Guzman Loera gave Ontiveros-Arambula approximately 250,000 in
cash to buy firearms for his troops. Ontiveros-Arambula bought the firearms in the United States
which he gave to members of the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico. Ontiveros-Arambula was
subsequently arrested and convicted in the United States.
18. One of my partners in Juarez was Valentin Saenz de la Cruz who is also known as "Lic." Saenz de
la Cruz was a drug trafficker who was first associated with the Juarez Cartel and then allied with
the Sinaloa Cartel. Saenz De La Cruz believed that the Juarez Cartel charged too much to permit
the movement of drug shipments in Juarez. I know that Saenz De La Cruz worked for Amado
Nunez-Meza and Mario Nunez-Meza in their drug trafficking activities. In 2008, Saenz De La Cruz
had a disagreement with Torres Marrufo and Guzman Loera, who didn't approve of the
kidnapping strategies of Saenz De La Cruz. As a result of the conflict with Guzman Loera, Saenz
De La Cruz became an independent trafficker and moved to Guadalajara, Jalisco. Saenz De La
Cruz cocaine supply was in Costa Rica.
19. As I have described previously, I have met in person with Joaquin Guzman Loera "Chapo," Mario
Nunez-Meza "Mayito," Amado Nunez-Meza "Plato," Gabino Salas-Valenciano, Sergio Garduno-
Escobedo, David Sanchez-Hernandez, Jesus Rodrigo Fierro-Ramirez, Arturo Lozano-Mendez,
Mario De La 0 Lopez, Arturo Shows Urquidi, Adrian Avila-Ramirez "Bam Bam," and Valentin
Saenz De La Cruz "Lit" and therefore I recognize the photos of these individuals which are
attached to this declaration as follows:
1467
3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
5
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
6 ) CR 91-446-TUC-FRZ
Plaintiff, )
7 )
vs. )
8 ) March 21 and 22, 2006
FELIPE DE JESUS CORONA- ) Tucson, Arizona
9 VERBERA, )
)
10 Defendant. )
11
12 TESTIMONY OF: MIGUEL ANGEL MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ
13
BEFORE: HONORABLE FRANK R. ZAPATA
14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
405 W. CONGRESS, COURTROOM 5-A
15 TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701
16 A P P E A R A N C E S
17 FOR THE GOVERNMENT: MR. JAMES LACEY and MR. DAVID

FLANNIGAN, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS.
18
FOR THE DEFENDANT: MS. ANDREA MATHESON, ATTORNEY AT
19 LAW.
20 THE INTERPRETERS: MR. JUAN RADILLO and MS. YVETTE

CITIZEN.
21
22 DIANNE DAVENPORT, RDR, CRR

405 W. CONGRESS, SUITE 1500
23 TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701
(520)205-4266
24
Proceedings prepared by computerized realtime translation.
25
1468
1 WITNESS INDEX
2 WITNESS PAGE
3 MIGUEL ANGEL MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ
4 Direct Examination by Mr. Flannigan 4
5 Cross-Examination by Ms. Matheson 103
6 Redirect Examiantion by Mr. Flannigan 160
8 EXHIBIT INDEX
9 EXHIBIT OFFERED ADMITTED
10 43 57 57
11 63 86 86
12 121 28 28
13 122 84 84
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1469
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 (Call to order of court, 9:40 a.m.)
3 THE COURT: Record will reflect the presence of counsel
4 and the defendant and the ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
5 Would you call your next witness, please, Mr. Lacey.
6 MR. LACEY: Mr. Martinez.
7 Could we see you at sidebar.
8 (At sidebar.)
9 MS. MATHESON: Last week I had asked that Agent
10 Reyna be taken out of the courtroom because there was a possibility I
11 was going to call him as a witness related to Mr. Gamez. I am not
12 going to be calling him and the government is not going to be calling
13 him. I have no objection to him remaining in the courtroom.
14 THE COURT: Very well.
15 MR. LACEY: One more thing. In talking with counsel,
16 we discussed this witness. In opening statements murders were
17 talked about by the defense suggesting that's something she is going
18 into with this witness.
19 That being the case, and we talked yesterday, we are
20 going to bring that out in direct examination only because it was going
21 to be gone into by the defense for the record.
22 MR. FLANNIGAN: There is also Exhibit 121 that is a map
23 of Mexico. We will be moving that into evidence and counsel has no
24 problem with that.
25 THE COURT: Very well.

1470
1 (In open court.)
2 MIGUEL ANGEL MARTINEZ-MARTINEZ
3 GOVERNMENT WITNESS, SWORN
4 (The following testimony was through the federally
5 certified court interpreters.)
6 THE COURT: If you would please state your full name
7 for the record, sir.
8 THE WITNESS: My full name is Miguel Angel
9 Martinez-Martinez.
10 DIRECT EXAMINATION
11 BY MR. FLANNIGAN:
12 Q. Mr. Martinez-Martinez, what country are you a citizen of?
13 A. I am a citizen of Mexico.
14 Q. You are incarcerated at the present time?
15 A. Yes, sir.
16 Q. How long have you been incarcerated?
17 A. Eight years.
18 Q. Have you been extradited to the United States?
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. When were you extradited?
21 A. June 25 of 2001.
22 Q. Are you currently in the witness protection program?
23 A. Yes, sir.
24 Q. What is the length of the sentence that you are serving?
25 A. 219 months.
1471
1 Q. How much time do you have left to serve on your sentence?
2 A. Are you asking me with good time or without good time?
3 Q. With good time.
4 A. Nine years.
5 Q. Now, you entered a plea of guilty in this country to a charge?
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. Where was the court that you entered a plea of guilty to?
8 A. In San Diego, California.
9 Q. What charge did you plead guilty to?
10 A. Drug conspiracy and money laundering.
11 Q. Who were you charged or alleged to have conspired with?
12 A. With Mr. Joaquin Guzman-Loera or, in other words, with the
13 Sinaloa cartel.
14 Q. Who is Joaquin Guzman-Loera?
15 A. One of the most sought after drug traffickers that are in Mexico.
16 Q. What is the Sinaloa cartel?
17 A. It's one of the largest drug trafficking organizations in Mexico.
18 Q. What is the purpose of that organization?
19 A. To send drugs to the United States of America.
20 Q. And when did you become involved with the Sinaloa cartel?
21 A. In the beginning of 1987.
22 Q. How long then did you remain with the cartel working?
23 A. Until I was detained.
24 Q. When were you detained?
25 A. June 8 of 1998, and I was detained because of a petition from

1472
1 the government of the United States of America for my extradition.
2 Q. How long did you remain in custody in Mexico before being
3 extradited to the United States?
4 A. Three years, sir.
5 Q. Where are you from originally?
6 A. I was born in Celaya, Guanajuato, Mexico.
7 Q. What was your formal education?
8 A. I went to high school and then I went to Brownsville, Texas to
9 study commercial pilot.
10 Q. Brownsville, Texas?
11 A. Brownsville, Texas.
12 Q. And when was it then that you completed your education there
13 in Brownsville, Texas?
14 A. 1980.
15 Q. Did you get a commercial pilot's license at that time?
16 A. Yes, sir.
17 Q. After graduating then from Brownsville, Texas as a commercial
18 pilot, what sort of work did you do?
19 A. I was flying as a commercial pilot for a private company, as a
20 commercial pilot for a company in Celaya, Guanajuato. It was a
21 private company.
22 Q. What was the name of the company?
23 A. Mars (phonetic).
24 Q. What kind of work were you doing?
25 A. I would typically fly executives so they could check on the

1473
1 furniture stores that they had all through the Mexican republic.
2 Q. Now, you mentioned that in 1987 there came a point in time
3 when you became involved with the cartel, the Sinaloa cartel?
4 A. Yes, sir.
5 Q. Can you tell the jury how that came about.
6 A. I was working for a private company there in Celaya,
7 Guanajuato. I was fixing the aircraft there, the plane for that private
8 company, when a person approached me looking for a pilot.
9 Q. Who was that person?
10 A. Well, at that particular time, he didn't give me his name. Do
11 you want me to give you his name?
12 Q. Yes, sir.
13 A. His name is Martin Moreno-Valdez.
14 Q. What happened then?
15 A. He asked me if I was a pilot, if I could fly a plane, a 206, a
16 Cessna 206 from Celaya, Guanajuato to Guadalajara, Jalisco because
17 he couldn't find his pilot and all he wanted was a pilot to fly from
18 Celaya to Guadalajara.
19 Q. Did you agree to do that?
20 A. Yes, sir.
21 Q. And what happened then?
22 A. Once we were on our way on the flight, he asked me if I knew of
23 any clandestine or secret runways near Guanajuato.
24 Q. Did you know of any?
25 A. Yes, I knew of several runways because in addition to being a

1474
1 private pilot at night I was in charge of receiving contraband from the
2 United States of America and by contraband I mean TVs, video
3 recorders, tape recorders, sound appliances, sound systems. And
4 when we received them, we would receive them in those secret
5 runways through DC 3 planes or 646 or DC 4s.
6 Q. Was this considered contraband in order to avoid paying duties?
7 Is that what you are talking about?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. So you knew about this clandestine runway. And what did you
10 do as a result?
11 A. Well, Martin Moreno said that if I knew those clandestine
12 runways and I said yes, I know some. He said he was interested in
13 bringing contraband from the United States. We got to Guadalajara,
14 Jalisco. I gave him my phone number, my home number. I left the
15 plane in Guadalajara, Jalisco and I returned to Celaya, Guanajuato by
16 bus. He paid me for having made the flight from Celaya to
17 Guadalajara. I returned to Celaya and he said he would call me later.
18 Q. Did you hear from him after that then, from Martin Moreno?
19 A. Yes, approximately one month later.
21 A. He set up a meeting with me in Celaya, Guanajuato. He told me
22 he was in a hotel, in the Campestre Hotel. I went to see him. He
23 asked me if I had time to show him those clandestine runways. I said
24 yes. And we went to see two or three clandestine runways that were
25 in the north of Guanajuato in the Sierras there, in the mountains

1475
1 toward the north in Guanajuato.
2 We found them. He liked them. He said they were
3 appropriate. And then at night he invited me to eat, to drink, to talk,
4 you know, the way things are in this business.
5 Q. Then did he offer you any other work?
6 A. Yes. He was hanging out with me for two or three days.
7 We went to eat, we went to drink, we went dancing. And during
8 those three days, he told me the truth was not to be bringing
9 contraband from the United States but it was to bring drugs from
10 Colombia.
11 Q. Did he ask you to do anything in that regard?
12 A. He asked me if I was willing to go to Colombia as a guide, a
13 pilot, so I could show other pilots there where the runways were in
14 Mexico because what he wanted was a pilot that could show them --
15 that knew where the runways were that would come with them.
16 Q. He wanted you as a guide for Colombian pilots?
17 A. Yes, sir.
18 Q. And did you agree to do that?
19 A. Yes, sir, in exchange for $30,000.
20 Q. Were you paid in advance?
21 A. No.
23 A. He asked me if I was willing to travel immediately. I said yes
24 and asked him how many days I would be in Colombia. He said it was
25 going to be fast. It was just a matter of getting to Colombia and

1476
10
1 returning after two or three days.
2 Q. So did you do that?
3 A. Yes, I went to Colombia. But first he met with me and told me I
4 needed to get a passport with another name. I said I couldn't do that.
5 So he said he had contacts in Mexico that could give him my passport
6 the next day with another name. So he sent me to Guadalajara.
7 In Guadalajara another person was waiting for me. He
8 told me he had set up a meeting with me in a hotel in Guadalajara in a
9 hotel called Plaza Del Sol. This person arrived. I gave him the
10 photographs. He said, "What name do you want it under?" I
11 remember I chose Felipe Arriaga. I gave him the photos and I put the
12 name on the back.
13 I waited two days in Guadalajara and he gave me my
14 passport. I returned to Celaya, Guanajuato. I saw Martin Moreno. He
15 gave me $5,000 to go to Colombia for expenses. He told me when I
16 arrived in Colombia a person would contact me, that I had to call a
17 phone number that he gave me.
18 I went to Colombia. I arrived in Colombia at Bogota. I
19 stayed at a hotel. I called the number he gave me. He contacted me
20 and I was told to go to Barranquilla.
21 Q. What kind of drugs was it that you were going to fly from
22 Colombia to Mexico?
23 A. Well, it was supposed to be marijuana.
24 Q. Now, you said you went to Barranquilla to see somebody there?
25 A. The person that was waiting for me in Colombia was another

1477
11
1 Mexican that the cartel had over there in Colombia.
2 Q. What was his name?
3 A. Alberto Araujo.
4 Q. Did you meet up with him in Barranquilla?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. What happened then down there?
7 A. So I flew on to Barranquilla and he found me an apartment there
8 that's close to Barranquilla. It's called El Rodadero, a beach close

to
9 Barranquilla. I was waiting there. He said it could be anytime. It
10 could be between four and five days before I returned to Mexico.
11 Q. So you waited and then what happened?
12 A. Well, it wasn't four days, sir. I had to wait almost six months.
13 Q. What were you doing during this six-month period you were
14 waiting?
15 A. Absolutely nothing. I just was waiting all the time. He would
16 tell me several things, that the plane couldn't arrive, hadn't arrived
17 with the marijuana, they couldn't find the marijuana, that the runway
18 wasn't right. That was the first months, during the first months.
19 And then the second three months was used in looking
20 for people who were interested in sending things, sending drugs to
21 Mexico because it turned out that marijuana that they had bought had
22 been stolen from them. So they were trying to find somebody who
23 could send marijuana or cocaine.
24 Q. This time, this six months, you were there in Colombia waiting
25 and having these problems, did you remain in contact with Miguel
1478
12
1 Moreno?
2 A. No. His name is not Miguel Moreno. It is Martin Moreno.
3 Q. Did you remain in contact with him?
4 A. Yes. We were in contact, he and I and Alberto Araujo.
5 Q. You said there at the end the marijuana was unavailable and you
6 were looking now for other sources and what happened then?
7 A. Well, I wasn't looking for them. I was just accompanying Alberto
8 Araujo because at that time we were living together in Barranquilla,
9 Colombia.
10 Q. What happened at the end of six months?
11 A. After six months it was not possible to establish any contacts,
12 nothing was brought over, no marijuana, no cocaine, no nothing. So I
13 returned to Mexico in a commercial airline. And from Mexico City I
14 went to Celaya, Guanajuato.
15 I went to Barranquilla, Colombia in the month of June
16 1986. By the time I got back, it was December of 1986. But we didn't
17 return with marijuana or cocaine or anything. I lost my contact with
18 Martin because it was December. Also the contact that I had in
19 Colombia because he remained in Colombia.
20 Q. Why did you lose contact with Martin Moreno simply because it
21 was December?
22 A. Because generally in December people go back to their houses
23 from the place where they are.
25 A. Because I was hanging out there in my house disappointed

1479
13
1 because I spent the last six months without seeing my family, no
2 money, and I lost my job.
3 Q. So then did there come a point in time when you finally made
4 contact with Martin Moreno?
5 A. It was approximately January 15 of 1987 which is when I
6 received a phone call at my parents' house. It was Alberto Araujo. He
7 was calling me from Guadalajara, Jalisco. He said he would call me
8 cousin. That's how he called me. "Cousin, I need you to come to
9 Guadalajara because I'm going to introduce you to the senor."
10 Q. Did you know who the senor was at that moment?
11 A. No.
12 Q. So did you go then to Guadalajara?
13 A. I went to Guadalajara.
14 Q. What happened when you got there?
15 A. I stayed at a hotel in Guadalajara, in the hotel Plaza Del Sol.
16 While I was in Guadalajara, Alberto Araujo came for me. And he took
17 me to meet the senor. At that moment I met Mr. Joaquin
18 Guzman-Loera or Archibaldo Guzman-Loera aka Chappo Guzman.
19 Q. Where was it that you met El Chappo Guzman?
20 A. They took me to a residential complex that is in Guadalajara.
21 Sir, I don't know which one it was. I don't know which apartment or
22 house complex.
23 Q. And when you were taken there, who was present when you met
24 El Chappo Guzman?
25 A. It was -- the only ones there were Alberto Araujo, El Chappo

1480
14
1 Guzman and me as I arrived.
2 Q. Did you have a conversation with El Chappo?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And would you relate that conversation to us.
5 A. He said, "Hello, friend. How are you? You are the one who did
6 us the favor of going to Colombia. Unfortunately we weren't able to
7 do anything. But I called you to meet you because Alberto here has
8 given me very good references about you, that you were very
9 well-behaved in Colombia. You were there six months and that we
10 didn't do anything. So I called you to thank you and to pay you for
11 your flight" --
12 Q. How did you respond --
13 A. -- "even though you didn't do it."
14 Q. How did you respond to that?
15 A. I told him that honestly I didn't want the money, that I felt bad
16 taking money for something I had not done because also I was
17 starting to meet them. I was afraid to take the money, take the
18 money without knowing what was going to happen.
19 Q. So did you say anything? Did you suggest anything to El Chappo
20 at that moment?
21 A. I told him, yes, that if he would please lend me the equivalent of
22 $5,000 and if he would give me an opportunity to go again to
23 Colombia. If they were going to do something in Colombia, if he
24 would give me the opportunity to go as an airplane guide.
25 Q. What made you think that things would be any different in

1481
15
1 Colombia this time?
2 A. The thing is that Alberto Araujo and I were there six months.
3 We spent the last three months knocking on doors in Colombia offering
4 who would want to send drugs to Mexico.
5 Q. What made you think that returning that it would be any more
6 fruitful?
7 A. Well, I didn't think it was going to be more fruitful, but I wasn't
8 employed and what I wanted was to make money.
9 Q. You agreed to go?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And what did you do before going? Were there any preparations
12 made?
13 A. Mr. Guzman suggested that I get another passport and that I was
14 to go to Cumpas, Sonora to familiarize myself with the landing strip at
15 Cumpas, Sonora because the drugs were no longer going to be flown
16 to Guanajuato but to Cumpas, Sonora.
17 Q. Did you then go to Cumpas?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. How did you get there?
20 A. I went from Guadalajara by bus -- by plane to Hermosillo,
21 Sonora and from there by bus to Agua Prieta, Sonora.
22 Q. How far is Agua Prieta from Cumpas?
23 A. Approximately driving about an hour and a half.
24 Q. Did you go by yourself?
25 A. No. I went by myself to Agua Prieta. El Chappo told me in Agua

1482
16
1 Prieta he would give me a number of somebody that I was supposed to
2 call.
3 Q. Who was this person you were supposed to call?
4 A. No, she -- he was going to call me. This person I later find
5 out -- or I later found out was Hector Beltran-Leyva.
6 Q. And was he any relation to El Chappo Guzman?
7 A. Yes. He's the cousin of El Chappo Guzman. And at that time he
8 was in charge of Agua Prieta. At that time I didn't know that he was
a
9 cousin of El Chappo Guzman. I also didn't know that he was Hector
10 Beltran. And I also didn't know that he was in charge of Agua Prieta,
11 Sonora.
12 Q. Those things you found out later?
13 A. Little by little.
14 Q. So then when you arrive in Agua Prieta, where did you go?
15 A. I stayed in a hotel called Hacienda. The next day I made a
16 phone call. Somebody answered. I asked for Hector. No, I didn't ask
17 for Hector. They told me I was supposed to ask for H. I asked for H.
18 H answered the phone and told me they could come by for me in two
19 or three hours. And that's the way it happened. He came by for me.
20 We went to see the landing strip at Cumpas, Sonora. We saw the
21 landing strip at Cumpas, Sonora. He left me at the side of the
22 highway to catch a bus back to Hermosillo, Sonora.
23 Q. You didn't go back to Agua Prieta at that time?
24 A. No.
25 Q. So you went then to Hermosillo, and from Hermosillo where did

1483
17
1 you go?
2 A. From Hermosillo I went to Guadalajara from Guadalajara I went
3 to Celaya. I got my stuff. I left money to my ex-wife and I went to
4 Colombia.
5 Q. Where did you go in Colombia?
6 A. One moment. As part of all this, before I went to Colombia, El
7 Chappo, Joaquin Guzman, told me in Colombia the person awaiting for
8 me would be Alberto Araujo.
9 Q. So you flew to Bogota?
10 A. I flew to Bogota. And once in Bogota I contacted Alberto Araujo
11 and he told me to go to Medellin, Colombia. I arrived at Medellin,
12 Colombia. He was waiting for me at the airport. And from there we
13 went to a rental apartment he had.
15 A. He told me that everything was ready, that I would leave in two
16 or three days at the most and that they had a flight ready with
17 cocaine. He told me the same thing the first time I went and I waited
18 six months. So when he told me that it was going to be two or three
19 days, I didn't quite believe him. But that's the way it went.
20 Q. You were just there two or three days?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. What did you do then?
23 A. He called me one night before. He told me that I would be
24 leaving the next day with the flight, to be ready. I packed my things.
25 That he would pick me up at 8:00 in the morning. They came for me

1484
18
1 at 8:00 in the morning, took me to the airport in Medellin, him and
2 another Colombian. And there was a plane there waiting for me, a
3 980 Turbo Commander with one pilot and another Colombian who was
4 kind of like the person who fuels the plane.
5 Q. And the first Colombian that went with you, what was his name?
6 A. Lucas Betancourt.
7 Q. Then what happened?
8 A. We lifted off or took off from Medellin, Colombia and we went to
9 some part of the jungle in Colombia. That part or that area of
10 Colombia is known as Caqueta. It's a Colombian state that is close to
11 Ecuador. I didn't find that out until later. I didn't ask anything.
I just
12 got into the plane. We took off to Medellin.
13 Q. What kind of an aircraft was it?
14 A. It was a 980 Turbo Commander.
15 Q. Who was in the airplane?
16 A. The pilot and another Colombian.
17 Q. Which Colombian was this?
18 A. I don't know him, sir. I didn't ask because I just saw him for the
19 duration of the trip.
20 Q. What about Alberto Araujo? Did he go on the trip from Medellin
21 to Caqueta?
22 A. No. He remained in Medellin with the other Colombian.
23 We took off from Medellin to Caqueta. We landed in a
24 clandestine strip in the middle of the jungle. We waited until it got

to
25 be 2:00 in the morning. And when we landed at that ranch, there

1485
19
1 were some people waiting for us. And we parked the plane
2 underneath something that was like a canvas ceiling or covering. And
3 a military-type Jeep came for us close to the plane.
4 We got into the Jeep and they took us to a house that
5 was between the canopy of the trees. They fed us there. They had
6 rooms for resting. And while we were resting, waiting for it to get to
7 be 2:00 in the morning so we could take off, we ate, the pilot, the
8 Colombian and myself.
9 After eating everybody went to their room. At 1:30 a.m.
10 they came and woke me up. They told me it's time. I bathed, I got
11 dressed, and the same Jeep took us back to the plane.
12 Once we got to the plane, the plane already didn't have
13 the seats. It was loaded with the cocaine and with gas canisters
14 inside.
15 Q. With gasoline?
16 A. Yes, sir.
18 A. We took off at 2:00 in the morning in the direction of Mexico.
19 Q. Who was in the airplane?
20 A. The pilot, the Colombian and me. The pilot was steering. I was
21 as a co-pilot and the other Colombian was behind me. Behind the
22 Colombian were the drugs in duffel bags, military-style packs. And
23 gas canisters behind us.
24 Q. Who was the pilot?
25 A. It was an American pilot because as we were flying over he

1486
20
1 showed me his picture and he showed me that he was a Navy pilot of
2 an aircraft carrier the F-5.
3 Q. Did he speak English?
4 A. Perfectly.
5 Q. Did he speak Spanish?
6 A. No, and I didn't speak English.
7 Q. How did you communicate with him?
8 A. By gestures.
9 Q. So it's you and this American pilot and the Colombian. And
10 where do you guys go?
11 A. Well, I had been instructed to land in Cancun, Mexico at Cancun
12 International Airport. And Joaquin Guzman told me -- well, not
13 Joaquin Guzman because the person who was in contact with Joaquin
14 Guzman while we were in Colombia was Alberto Araujo.
15 Q. That is Alberto Araujo?
16 A. Alberto Araujo is the person who was with me in Colombia.
17 Q. Did you fly then to Cancun?
18 A. Yes, we flew to the international airport in Cancun.
19 Q. And how was it that you landed?
20 A. Well, I knew the one who had to speak on the radio was me
21 because the pilot didn't speak Spanish. That's why I was there in the
22 plane so I could speak on the radio and to tell the pilot where the
23 landing strips were in Mexico.
24 Q. How did you identify yourself then on the radio?
25 A. Well, we had this -- I was Gordo.

1487
21
1 Q. That was your nickname?
2 A. Uh-huh.
3 Q. I meant how did you identify yourself in making the landing with
4 the officials there at Cancun at the international airport?
5 A. What officer?
6 Q. Well, it's an international airport, correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. You are coming in from Colombia?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you have to make any announcement as to who you are
11 coming into the airport there before you land?
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. How did you do that?
14 A. One calls the control tower and that is what I did. I called the
15 control tower, but I never said I was coming from Colombia. I said I
16 was coming from Yucatan, Mexico and that I was requesting
17 instructions to land at their airport. Beto Araujo told me everything
18 was already fixed. The police was taken care of. Everything was
19 taken care of.
20 Q. What does that mean, that the police was taken care of?
21 A. Well, I imagine that when they say "police," they refer to the
22 Mexican police.
23 Q. So you then landed in Cancun?
24 A. Yes, sir.

1488
22
1 A. The pilot told me I had to fill out the flight plan so we could take
2 off again. We had to get to Cancun because if we flew directly from
3 Colombia to Mexico to Cumpas without refueling, we could only take
4 800 kilos of cocaine in the plane. But since we were going to land in
5 Cancun, we could carry more cocaine and leave the fuel below. So
6 what we loaded to the plane was 1,420 kilos of cocaine.
7 Q. In Colombia?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. What was the purpose of taking the fuel with you? You
10 mentioned that you had some fuel that you took in the plane.
11 A. When you measure the distance from one city to another, you
12 say I have enough fuel in my plane to fly five hours but I have to fly
13 six hours and a half. And I can't just stop at any airport because I'm
14 carrying drugs.
15 So what you do is you carry canisters with gasoline on
16 the plane and you retank while you are on the plane through gravity.
17 They have these special fixtures in planes. So they have these special
18 fixtures so you can do this through a hose.
19 They have a hose and you can put the hose in the plane
20 and you put the hose in the gas and the other end of the tube you put
21 it in the part that is connected to the wings.
22 Q. You can do that while you are flying in the sky?
23 A. Yes. That's what it's for. You do that while you are on the plane,
24 while you are in flight so you can be refueling and you don't have to
25 stop.
1489
23
1 Q. What happened when you got to Cancun?
2 A. We landed in Cancun. I knew that we had to fill up the gas
3 tanks from the plane again. The pilot told me. I knew that I had to
4 communicate through the radio. And I knew that I had to make out
5 the flight plan.
6 When we landed in Cancun, the pilot moved to the side.
7 I went to the airport headquarters. I filled out the flight plan. I

said
8 for departure. I wrote down that we were going to Coatzacoalcos,
9 Veracruz.
10 Q. But actually you were going to Cumpas?
11 A. Of course. But I wasn't going to tell them where we were going.
13 A. I told the person there at the airport that is in charge of filling
14 up with gas, that he was in charge of the pipes out of the gas, I said,
15 "Please fill it up with gas," and he came in and filled it up. He
16 apparently filled up the tank with gas. I went to fill out the flight
plan.
17 I returned. I paid the guy with the fuel and we took off.
18 Q. Toward Cumpas?
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. What happened on that flight?
21 A. About two hours during the flight approximately, the pilot started
22 checking on the navigation system, a system that is called Omega. He
23 started asking the program how much time we had to get to Cumpas
24 and how much gas, how much fuel we had left.
25 Q. What was the problem?

1490
24
1 A. The problem was that they had not filled up the wings with
2 enough fuel. So when we were in flight, he said to me, "You know
3 what, we have six hours to get to Cumpas and the amount of gas we
4 have is for five hours and 45 minutes. So we are not going to make it
5 because we will need 15 more minutes of flight time." He said,
6 "Where else can we land?" I said, "Nowhere."
7 Q. What did you guys do?
8 A. Well, he started going up and down looking for a favorable wind
9 that could help us get some speed.
10 Q. Were you able to accomplish anything?
11 A. Well, he lowered it to such a point where we had an hour and a
12 half and we had an hour and 25 minutes worth of gas. When we were
13 close to Cumpas, Sonora, about three or four minutes before arriving,
14 by this time we knew that we weren't going to make it because he
15 started sweating a lot. He said, "We are not going to make it." He
16 said, "We need to find a place to land. Start looking for a road or an
17 area where we can land."
18 Q. Did you find a place to land?
19 A. No.
20 Q. What did you do?
21 A. We kept going, kept going, kept going until we ran out of gas.
23 A. We were very close to the Cumpas airport, approximately one
24 minute. The pilot was an extraordinary pilot. We ran out of gas, out
25 of fuel in the air. The plane started moving, waving until we made it
1491
25
1 to the landing strip. We landed on the landing strip and the plane
2 shattered because we didn't have reverse to be able to stop the plane.
3 It landed halfway on the landing strip because he
4 wanted to secure the landing strip because we were out of gas. We
5 were just gliding. He wanted to just secure the landing strip because
6 we were just gliding without fuel. So we landed and halfway down the
7 landing strip we couldn't brake and we stopped where there was a wire
8 fence.
9 Q. When you stopped you said the airplane shattered. Were you
10 injured?
11 A. Fortunately nothing happened to us but all the landing gear just
12 broke.
13 Q. What about the cocaine?
14 A. It was completely saved.
15 Q. Who was there then at Cumpas, at the airport in Cumpas to
16 meet you?
17 A. Well, there were several people. There were many people.
18 There were 15 or 20 people. I didn't know them all. But there were
19 three people there. Joaquin Guzman. I didn't know who he was then,
20 I found out later, but it was Arturo Beltran-Leyva. And Hector
21 Beltran-Leyva was also there. And there were armed people there that
22 I didn't know.
23 Q. Who is Arturo Beltran?
24 A. You mean now?
25 Q. No. What is his relationship to Hector and El Chappo?

1492
26
1 A. Well, at that time I didn't know. He's the cousin of Chappo
2 Guzman. And he was Chappo Guzman's right hand. When something
3 happens to Chappo Guzman, he's the one that succeeds him. He's
4 right there.
5 Q. What is his relationship --
6 A. But at this time I didn't know that. Okay. That was my first
7 flight and that is where I started.
8 Q. Is he related to Hector Beltran?
9 A. Who?
10 Q. Arturo Beltran.
11 A. They are brothers.
12 Q. Now, so they were there to meet you at the Cumpas airport.
13 What happened after that?
14 A. They took the cocaine out. They put it on a bus, a truck, a
15 truck. We were going to burn the truck.
16 Q. The airplane?
17 A. The plane. So that we wouldn't leave any evidence.
18 Q. Did you do that?
19 A. No, because the pilot said that it could be fixed with some new
20 landing gear. And so Chappo asked me if I knew somebody in Mexico
21 that could send the landing gear to Cumpas, Sonora. And I knew that
22 in Mexico City there was a business called Arrow Commander. And
23 that's where they sell parts for all Arrow Commander and Turbo
24 Commander planes. I found the store.
25 And I asked them if they had landing gear for a Turbo

1493
27
1 Commander 980 new one. They said yes. I asked them if they could
2 install it in a plane that had just broken down. They said yes. I asked
3 them if they had mechanics who could make those repairs. They said
4 yes. I said can you go to the place where there is a broken down
5 plane and they said yes, as long as we pay.
6 Q. Did El Chappo pay you for this trip?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. How much did he pay you?
9 A. $30,000.
10 Q. Did there come a time when you made another similar type of
11 trip?
12 A. One more.
13 Q. When was that? When did you make that trip?
14 A. About three to four months after that.
15 Q. Where did you fly from?
16 A. From Colombia to Celaya, Guanajuato.
17 Q. Was this also at the instruction of Joaquin Guzman?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. How much cocaine -- or was it cocaine that you were delivering
20 that time?
21 A. Yes, sir.
22 Q. How much did you carry from Colombia to Celaya, Guanajuato?
23 A. 850 kilos because that time we didn't stop anywhere.
24 Q. And were you paid for that trip?
25 A. Yes, sir.
1494
28
1 Q. How much?
2 A. $30,000.
3 Q. I'll ask you to come up to the map here.
4 MR. FLANNIGAN: If I could approach the witness, Your
5 Honor.
6 THE COURT: Yes, you may. This exhibit is what
7 number?
8 MR. FLANNIGAN: 201.
9 THE COURT: Is it being offered?
10 MR. FLANNIGAN: Yes.
11 THE COURT: Any objection to that?
12 MS. MATHESON: No, Your Honor.
13 THE COURT: 201 is admitted.
14 MR. FLANNIGAN: It is 121.
15 THE COURT: 121 is admitted and may be published.
16 You may step down, sir. You may step down to the
17 map.
19 Q. If you can step to the side so the jury can see where you are
20 pointing. Do you recognize this as a map of Mexico?
21 A. It's half of the Mexican territory.
22 Q. Does it show Celaya, Guanajuato where you were born?
23 A. It's not here on the map, but it's more or less right here.
24 Q. What about Guadalajara? Can you see Guadalajara on the map?
25 A. It's right here.

1495
29
1 Q. What about Mexico City?
2 A. Over here.
3 Q. If I can get you to step to the side a little bit. Give us a

general
4 area, it will be off the map, but where you flew from Colombia to
5 Cancun.
6 A. Cancun is out of this map.
7 Q. That would be in the Yucatan peninsula?
8 A. Yes. Cumpas is over here.
9 Q. You see Agua Prieta?
10 A. Cumpas is right here.
11 Q. To the south of Agua Prieta. And Hermosillo?
12 A. Is right here.
13 Q. Up here. Okay. You can go ahead and take your seat then.
14 THE WITNESS: Excuse me. May I drink some water?
15 THE COURT: Yes, sir.
17 Q. The second trip when you made it from Colombia to Celaya, did
18 you have the same American pilot with you?
19 A. No, sir.
20 Q. Once you made those two trips -- your testimony is you were
21 paid $30,000 for the first trip. What about the second trip? What
22 were you paid for that?
23 A. $30,000 as well.
24 Q. Did you make any more trips as a pilot's guide from Colombia?
25 A. No.
1496
30
1 Q. Did El Chappo ask you to do anything else for the cartel?
2 A. He said why didn't I stop flying and why not help him to open
3 offices or to tend to his offices.
4 Q. How many offices did he want you to attend to?
5 A. One.
6 Q. What office was that?
7 A. Well, first he wanted to open the Celaya, Guanajuato office. But
8 first he already had an open one in Guadalajara, Jalisco. He wanted to
9 move from Guadalajara to Celaya. He didn't like Celaya because he
10 said it was too small a city. So then he said Mexico City. And that's
11 when I went to Mexico City.
12 Q. When was it more or less that you went to Mexico City?
13 A. This was approximately around the beginning of 1988.
14 Q. What were your duties in Mexico City?
15 A. Well, at that time it was to answer the telephone, to tell him
16 who was calling, to give him the messages, whatever he told me to
17 do, buy a car, get a money exchange house.
18 Q. What about the importation of cocaine from Colombia? Did you
19 have anything to do with that?
20 A. That's where it started.
21 Q. What did you do?
22 A. I began as the person in charge of the Mexico City office and he
23 told me that he wanted me to coordinate with the Colombians the
24 flights that were coming towards Mexico City. For this it was about six
25 months that went by from when I got to Mexico that I started speaking
1497
31
1 with the Colombians.
2 Q. Did you make trips to Colombia or was this something you did
3 over the telephone?
4 A. Well, afterwards I did make some trips to Colombia. But initially
5 I did this by the phone. And he told me -- well, at this time he was
6 already receiving plenty of drugs in Agua Prieta. And he asked me to
7 please speak with the people in Colombia so I could coordinate the
8 trips from Agua Prieta to Colombia, the flights.
9 Q. Who were your contacts in Colombia?
10 A. Well, by this point he already had a list of contacts in Colombia.
11 He gave me some telephones. He gave me some scrambled. It is
12 telephones that were not detectible by the police. Everything was
13 controlled through the office. Also, we started purchasing phones for
14 communications within Mexico, beepers, pagers, cell phones and he
15 provided me a list of people.
16 Q. How was it then that you made arrangements for the importation
17 of cocaine?
18 A. No. He had already made the arrangements. All I would do
19 would speak over the phone what he would tell me. He would tell me
20 you need to speak to certain people in Colombia so they can send us
21 certain shipments of cocaine. Speak to such-and-such or speak to
22 so-and-so.
23 Q. So you made those arrangements with the Colombians?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. Once those arrangements would be made with the Colombians

1498
32
1 for flights coming in, what arrangements would you make in Mexico to
2 receive those flights?
3 A. I didn't have to make any arrangements. I would speak with the
4 Colombians to see how many planes they could send on the day
5 Chappo would tell them.
6 For example, Chappo would say, tell the Colombians
7 please to send me one or two or three planes this Saturday and I can
8 receive them and we would send the mechanics -- excuse me -- not
9 mechanics, pilots, so that they can come and see the strips, the
10 landing strips, or, if not, tell them that we can provide them guides.
11 So then I would call the people that he would tell me in
12 Colombia and I would say, sir, my employer -- and at the time I would
13 say in code my father invites you to a party. So that you can please
14 send your boys this weekend. And so how many guests or how many
15 young ladies could you help me with? Young ladies meant planes.
16 Q. So all this was a talk in code that you did?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. How many planes would come in daily from Colombia?
19 A. Well, it wasn't daily. Sometimes we would get five, five planes
20 in a night. Sometimes 16 planes in a night. Sometimes ten planes a
21 night. Sometimes eight planes a night.
22 Q. These planes on the average how much cocaine would they bring
23 per flight?
24 A. It depended on where they were going to land. The strips that
25 were being used then were near Agua Prieta, and Cumpas, Cananea,
1499
33
1 Fronteras, Caborca in Sonora, and Culiacan, and Tepic and Celaya.
2 Q. These were Colombian planes that were bringing in the cocaine?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And were there any planes that would go to the interior of
5 Mexico, Celaya, Guadalajara, Mexico City, those places?
6 A. All the planes that I am speaking to you about would go to the
7 interior of Mexico.
8 Q. I mean to the southern parts of Mexico.
9 A. No. We didn't work in the southern parts of Mexico.
10 Q. What about the central parts?
11 A. From Celaya on up.
12 Q. Now, what about these planes when they would come into the
13 airports? Were there any arrangements that had to be made on the
14 ground with airport officials or police to receive these planes?
15 A. He made the arrangements.
16 Q. El Chappo?
17 A. Yes, sir.
18 Q. And was the cocaine then to be crossed into the United States?
19 A. Through Agua Prieta it was crossed. At that time through Agua
20 Prieta.
21 Q. Everything through Agua Prieta?
22 A. Through Agua Prieta and Nogales.
23 Q. When the planes would then land, say, in Caborca, Cananea,
24 Celaya, how would the cocaine be taken from there to Agua Prieta?
25 A. It's very close by land.

1500
34
1 Q. What about places farther south, Celaya and places like that?
2 A. In planes, 206 Cessnas.
3 Q. Any Learjets?
4 A. No.
5 Q. How did the organization get these planes?
6 A. As he started growing, Joaquin Guzman started buying planes
7 and whatever he wanted.
8 Q. Were you involved in the purchase of planes at all?
9 A. Not at that time. Afterwards.
10 Q. When did you start getting involved in the purchase of planes?
11 A. Approximately in '90 when he started buying Learjets.
12 Q. Let me ask you now, the cocaine that is brought into Mexico,
13 approximately how much on the average was moved per month into
14 the United States through Agua Prieta?
15 A. Well, it varies, sir, because sometimes -- I would say around
16 three tons a month.
17 Q. From Agua Prieta where would the cocaine be taken?
18 A. To Los Angeles.
19 Q. And how was the cocaine distributed there in Los Angeles?
20 A. Joaquin Guzman had people in Los Angeles for the distribution of
21 the drugs.
22 Q. What about the Colombians? How were they paid?
23 A. You mean for the cocaine?
24 Q. Yes, sir.
25 A. Well, they would go by percentages. Chappo would have one

1501
35
1 percentage and the Colombians would have another. There were
2 different arrangements. Which would you like me to explain?
3 Q. Explain both. When the cocaine got to Los Angeles, how was it
4 divided up?
5 A. Well, the first arrangement was of the percentage that arrived to
6 Mexico City. 55 percent was for the Colombians and 45 percent for El
7 Chappo Guzman. This means that if a thousand kilos arrived, 550
8 were for the Colombians and 450 for Chappo Guzman.
9 The Colombians were covering the flight, the plane and
10 the merchandise as long as the merchandise was not lost in the United
11 States of America. If the merchandise was confiscated by the police of
12 the United States of America, both parties would lose that same
13 percentage. But if the merchandise was taken by the Mexican police,
14 El Chappo had to pay $2,000 per kilo of cocaine plus a thousand
15 dollars for the shipping.
16 Q. And was it a general practice that El Chappo had the Mexican
17 officials paid off?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And were there a lot of seizures in Mexico by the Mexican police
20 then?
21 A. As far as I know, there wasn't one.
22 Q. Now, what about the money? What would happen to the money?
23 How would the money be gotten back from El Chappo Guzman in Los
24 Angeles?
25 A. The drugs would arrive to Los Angeles, be distributed in Los

1502
36
1 Angeles, and then the money would return in cash through the border,
2 also Agua Prieta at this time.
3 Q. And from once it crossed the border, then what?
4 A. At that time once it had crossed the border, it would be sent by
5 planes, 206 Cessnas, to Guadalajara or Tepic.
6 Q. Now, what part of Mexico did the Sinaloa cartel or El Chappo
7 Guzman control at that time?
8 A. In what part of Mexico?
9 Q. Yes, sir.
10 A. You are referring -- you want me to talk about all of Mexico?
11 You want me to specify what parts of the entire Mexican republic?
12 Q. Yes, sir.
13 A. Chappo was in control of the border with Agua Prieta. I will start
14 at the border, okay. Agua Prieta, Nogales, at that time Hermosillo,
15 Culiacan, Tepic, Guadalajara, part of Michoacan and Mexico.
16 Q. Were there any rival organizations operating in the same area?
17 A. No.
18 Q. What about Baja, California? What was that controlled by?
19 A. That was controlled by another cartel.
20 Q. What was the name of that cartel?
21 A. The Tijuana cartel.
22 Q. What about Chihuahua on the other side?
23 A. That's controlled by another cartel.
24 Q. At that time were these cartels cooperating with each other?
25 A. No. With the Juarez one, there was not a problem.

1503
37
1 Q. That was Amado Carrillo's cartel?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And with which cartels did El Chappo have problems?
4 A. At that time with the Tijuana one.
5 Q. How were those problems resolved?
6 A. As far as I know, they still haven't been resolved.
7 Q. How would they try to resolve them?
8 A. Well, killing each other off, killing one another off.
9 Q. Now, part of your work, working for El Chappo, did you have
10 occasion to travel with El Chappo?
11 A. Yes, many times.
12 Q. What different places did you go with him?
13 A. I got to know the whole world.
14 Q. Such as which countries?
15 A. Japan, Hong Kong, Thailand, India, all of Europe, Argentina,
16 Brazil, Chile, Peru, the whole world.
17 Q. Were these business trips?
18 A. Well, a little business, a little pleasure.
19 Q. Did there come a point in time when you had any personal
20 relationship such as Godfather-type relationship with El Chappo
21 himself?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Tell us about that.
24 A. When my son was born, he asked me -- he asked to be the
25 Godfather. He wanted to be my son's Godfather.

1504
38
1 Q. Did that happen?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Now, did you make trips with El Chappo to the United States?
4 A. Yes, about two.
5 Q. Where did you go?
6 A. To Los Angeles and Las Vegas.
7 Q. Did you ever come here to Tucson?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Tell us about that occasion.
10 A. Well, I came here under orders of Chappo Guzman.
11 Q. When?
12 A. Approximately it was 1988, in the beginning of '88 or maybe at
13 the end of '87.
14 Q. Where did you come?
15 A. Pardon me?
16 Q. Where did you come?
17 A. I came from Mexico to Tucson. Chappo asked me. There was a
18 person here called Rafael Santana who was waiting here in Tucson so
19 that they could deliver to him a few kilos of heroin. So he sent me so
20 that I could be in contact with Agua Prieta so that they would tell me
21 on what day they would give me the heroin so I could deliver it to that
22 person. And I was here at a hotel. I believe it was the La Quinta
23 Hotel.
24 Q. Who did you meet with at La Quinta?
25 A. With Ralph Santana.

1505
39
1 Q. What about El Chappo? Did he come?
2 A. No, not that time, no.
3 Q. And after you made the arrangements here with Ralph Santana,
4 what did you do?
5 A. Well, the heroin couldn't be delivered to Ralph Santana because
6 Chappo told me that he had sold the heroin to somebody else. So
7 since the heroin couldn't be given to Ralph Santana, so that Ralph
8 Santana wouldn't be too bothered by that since he had come all the
9 way from New York for the heroin, for me to give him 30 kilos of
10 cocaine and it was given to him.
11 Q. He took that back to New York?
12 A. Yes, yes, sir.
13 Q. Now, you mentioned up until now a little bit of marijuana, heroin
14 and cocaine. Was the Sinaloa cartel involved in the smuggling of any
15 other drugs?
16 A. No, not that I know of.
17 Q. What about you personally? Did you get involved any more than
18 what you have just described to us with heroin or even marijuana?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Would it be fair to say you mainly were dealing with the cocaine
21 aspect of the business?
22 A. With whom?
23 Q. When you were working with El Chappo Guzman.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did there come a point in time when you were in Douglas,

1506
40
1 Arizona?
2 A. Yes, but only just in and out.
3 Q. Tell us about that and when that was.
4 A. Chappo Guzman told me I had to go for some money in Agua
5 Prieta, Sonora. He told me I had to come in the plane, me as a pilot

in
6 the 206 plane. And he told me to land in Agua Prieta and that a
7 person was going to be there to give me some money and that money
8 I had to return it the next day to Queretaro.
9 So I flew in the 206 plane from Guadalajara. I flew
10 directly. And since I wasn't familiar with the landing strip in Agua
11 Prieta, I landed in Douglas thinking it was Agua Prieta. When I saw
12 the American flag, I took off again and I landed in Agua Prieta.
13 Q. The Agua Prieta airport?
14 A. In the landing strip. It's a dirt landing strip.
15 Q. Who met you there?
16 A. Well, at that time I didn't know who he was because when one
17 starts with them, and we are talking about 1987, 1988, you don't
18 know who is who. They just tell you a person is going to pick you up.
19 I just want to explain this to you that I found out later who he was
20 because in this business they didn't say let me introduce you to
21 so-and-so who is in charge of doing this. You start finding out things
22 on your own if you are working with them.
23 Q. Did you find out who it was then that met you at the airport in
24 Agua Prieta?
25 A. Yes. His name is Bernardino Meza who later became the mayor
1507
41
1 of Agua Prieta.
2 Q. And what did Bernardino Meza give to you?
3 A. The next day he give me six million dollars.
4 Q. What did you do with the six million dollars?
5 A. We put them in the plane in bags with cash in them in $20 bills
6 and I flew with them to Queretaro and Chappo Guzman was waiting
7 for me there.
8 Q. At the airport?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Did you give the money directly to El Chappo Guzman?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. Now, you mentioned that you had come -- actually come with El
13 Chappo to the United States and I think you mentioned Las Vegas?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Tell me about that.
16 A. At this time Chappo was not well known. He asked me if I
17 wanted to see -- no, no, he didn't say that. He said about buying a
18 plane, a 210, a Cessna 210. Now, this one I'm talking about was
19 approximately 1987.
20 He called me to tell me he wanted to buy a 210 plane. I
21 was in Celaya, Guanajuato. Since I was a pilot, he said he wanted me
22 to go with him to Los Angeles. He asked me if I would do him the
23 favor of telling him out of the planes he wanted to buy which one was
24 better.
25 He asked me to meet him in Tijuana, that he was there.

1508
42
1 He told me it was at the Fiesta Americana Hotel in Tijuana. And I met
2 him there. I flew from Guadalajara to Tijuana.
3 Q. You met up with El Chappo in Tijuana?
4 A. Yes, sir.
5 THE COURT: Let's stop here for a minute. Let's take a
6 break at this time.
7 Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we will stand at recess
8 for about 10 to 15 minutes.
9 (The jury was excused.)
10 THE COURT: Record will reflect that the jury has
11 withdrawn, counsel and defendant are present.
12 Anything before we take this break, counsel?
13 MR. FLANNIGAN: No.
14 MS. MATHESON: No.
15 THE COURT: Thank you. We stand at recess.
16 Sir, you may step down. We are taking a recess at this
17 point.
18 (A recess was taken.)
19 THE COURT: Record will reflect the presence of counsel
20 and the defendant and the jury.
21 You may proceed, sir.
23 Q. Mr. Martinez, you were talking about your work as the director of
24 the office in Mexico City for El Chappo Guzman.
25 A. Well, I wasn't the only person in charge of the office in Mexico.

1509
43
1 There were three of us.
2 Q. Who were the three people in charge?
3 A. Well, it was me, Manuel Trillo Hernandez and Humberto
4 Loya-Castro.
5 Q. The lawyer?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, what was your compensation? How much did El Chappo
8 pay you per year for this work?
9 A. After I was organizing -- or working with the cartels in Colombia
10 and organizing the office for Chappo in Mexico, or actually from
11 mid-1989 on, I was making a million dollars a year.
12 Q. How was that paid to you?
13 A. In cash in a suitcase each December with a million dollars.
14 Q. Now, you were talking about the arrangements you made with
15 the cartels in Colombia. How many cartels in Colombia were you
16 dealing with?
17 A. With three.
18 Q. Which cartels were those?
19 A. Those were the Medellin. The ones in Medellin, Cali and Bogota.
20 Q. You mentioned going to Colombia. Would you go directly to
21 Colombia?
22 A. A majority of the time I would come in through Brazil or
23 Venezuela or Spain or Argentina.
24 Q. Did you ever go through Cuba?
25 A. Yes, several times.

1510
44
1 Q. Why would you make these circuitous routes, trips?
2 A. Because it's less obvious than coming straight from Mexico.
3 Q. When you were in Colombia, did you ever deal with Pablo
4 Escobar or his family?
5 A. No, not with him.
6 Q. With his family?
7 A. No, not them either.
8 Q. What about Fabio Ochoa?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Personally?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, you mentioned about the tons of cocaine that were passing
13 per month through Agua Prieta. At the beginning how would the
14 cocaine be taken across the border into the United States?
15 A. In the begining of '87 or the first flights, it was carried across

in
16 vans with a double floor in the floor.
17 Q. How would it be taken across? At the port of entry or where?
18 A. It would be through the port of entry directly. And the coke
19 would be traveling in the van in the lower part of that double floor.
20 And it had a special compartment. You would remove the screws.
21 They would put the cocaine in there. And then they would put the
22 screws back in and paint them the same color as the floor.
23 Q. Who would drive these vans across into the United States?
24 A. Different people who I didn't meet.
25 Q. Where would the vans be loaded up with the cocaine?

1511
45
1 A. In Agua Prieta, Sonora.
2 Q. Were there special places where that was done?
3 A. No. In the private residences of El Chappo Guzman's people who
4 lived there in Agua Prieta.
5 Q. How many people did Chappo Guzman have there in Agua
6 Prieta?
7 A. At this time I would guess 50 or 100 people.
8 Q. What about the vans once they would cross the port of entry?
9 Then what would happen to them?
10 A. They would go straight to Los Angeles.
11 Q. How would they get to Los Angeles?
12 A. Driving. The people would drive them to Los Angeles from Agua
13 Prieta.
14 Q. Coming through Tucson?
15 A. I couldn't tell you. I never came with them to be able to tell you
16 whether they came through Tucson or some other place.
17 Q. Would the same people be bringing the money back from Los
18 Angeles into Mexico?
19 A. I couldn't tell you that either.
20 Q. Your dealings with the money -- you mentioned how you would
21 come and receive money directly from Bernardino Meza in Douglas.
22 Where would your dealings with the money begin?
23 A. I would receive the money but in Agua Prieta. I never got
24 myself involved in bringing money from Los Angeles or taking it to
25 Agua Prieta.
1512
46
1 Q. How much money would you -- what was the most amount of
2 money that you had got yourself involved with transporting or taking
3 care of for El Chappo Guzman at one time?
4 A. That I had it in my possession?
5 Q. Yes, sir.
6 A. Approximately $30 million in cash.
7 Q. When was that?
8 A. I wouldn't be able to tell you exactly, but that was in the '90s,
9 beginning of the '90s, '90, '91.
10 Q. Where did you keep the $30 million?
11 A. There in the living room of my house.
12 Q. Were you responsible for paying cartel debts and obligations as
13 well?
14 A. What cartels?
15 Q. From your cartel, your own cartel, the Sinaloa cartel?
16 A. What payments?
17 Q. Any expenses out of that $30 million. Did you have to pay
18 anything or did you just deliver the whole amount to Chappo Guzman?
19 A. El Chappo Guzman would call me at my office, my cell phone, I
20 had a cell phone, or my pager. El Chappo would call and tell me to
21 deliver two million dollars to such-and-such a person or give two
22 million dollars to this other person.
23 Q. Would he ever test you to see whether you were being honest
24 with him and the money?
25 A. Yes.
1513
47
2 A. He would send me suitcases with $1,200,000 inside them and
3 then just tell me there was a million inside.
4 Q. And how would he test you then to check on it?
5 A. He would say, well, how much arrived? There is eight suit cases,
6 compadre, so that is eight million. So I would count it and there
7 would be 100,000 more or 80,000 more or 200,000 more in each
8 suitcase and I would say no.
9 Q. Did he let you know he was testing you? Did he tell you that?
10 A. Never, but I knew.
11 Q. Now --
12 A. Likewise, I knew that he was taping me.
13 Q. How did you know that?
14 A. Because I found out.
15 Q. Where did El Chappo stay during the time you were working for
16 him? Where was he?
17 A. At that time he had one house -- well, not one house. He had
18 four or five houses in each city in Mexico. He would travel constantly
19 every day all day. He would be traveling in his jets from one city to
20 another. So he had a house in Mexico, or Mexico City, or two houses,
21 and one night he would spend in one house and another night in the
22 other.
23 The next day he would go to Guadalajara, he had
24 another two or three houses there, and spend one night in one house
25 and then another night in another house. The next day he would go to
1514
48
1 Tepic, Nayarit and there he would have another three or four houses,
2 spend one night in one house and another night in another house.
3 Or he will have two or three houses and then he will go
4 and rent a hotel.
5 Q. How would you get in contact with him if he's on the road so
6 much traveling here and there?
7 A. By that time there were cell phones aplenty.
8 Q. You would --
9 A. And pagers and calls that would come in one place and you
10 would receive it somewhere else but it would show it was coming in
11 somewhere else.
12 Q. Was he in contact with you daily?
13 A. Day and night.
14 Q. Was there anyone else who knew how to get in touch with him
15 besides you?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Who was that?
18 A. Arturo Beltran, Manuel Trillo, the attorney Humberto Loya. There
19 was four or five of us around which he would spin or revolve.
20 Q. Alberto -- Arturo Guzman, who was he?
21 A. He was Chappo Guzman's brother.
22 Q. Also involved in the cartel at that time?
23 A. At that time, yes. But what I heard already in jail over here, he
24 was killed.
25 Q. He is dead now?
1515
49
1 A. I believe so, sir.
2 Q. What about El Chappo? Did he have any wife or wives?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. How many?
5 A. Out of the ones I met, three.
6 Q. Where did they live and what were their names?
7 A. One lived in Guadalajara, one lived in Tepic and the other lived
8 in Mexico City.
9 Q. What were their names?
10 A. The one that lived in Guadalajara, Alejandrina. The one that
11 lived in Mexico City, Griselda. And the one that lived in Tepic, Estela.
12 Q. Alejandrina, what was her last name before marrying El Chappo?
13 A. Salazar.
14 Q. Have you ever heard of Francisco Salazar?
15 A. Yes, sir.
16 Q. Do you know him?
17 A. I met him. He was killed.
18 Q. Who was he?
19 A. Alejandrina's brother. The brother-in-law of El Chappo Guzman.
20 Q. Now, let me ask you about Arturo Guzman. You mentioned him
21 before. Do you remember anything in connection with him and
22 bringing money back into the United States?
23 A. Yes.
25 A. Arturo Guzman was Chappo Guzman's brother. He was living in

1516
50
1 Agua Prieta, Sonora with Arturo Beltran and Hector Beltran. And there
2 was a time when he was receiving the money in Douglas, Sonora;
3 Douglas, Arizona. And one time he was stopped in Douglas with
4 money, but he got out on bail within two or three days. I don't
5 remember exactly, but El Chappo told me how much they had stopped
6 him with and I think it was a million dollars. And immediately upon
7 getting out, he went to Mexico. And I think he got out on bail.
8 Q. You mentioned about different people being killed, Arturo
9 Beltran -- or Arturo Guzman and Francisco Salazar. Were you aware of
10 El Chappo ordering the death of various people?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Did you ever order anyone's death?
13 A. Never.
14 Q. Did you ever carry a pistol or a weapon?
15 A. Never.
16 Q. What about people who were around El Chappo Guzman? Did
17 you ever see them with weapons?
18 A. Yes. Every time I saw them with weapons. I would like to
19 explain to you that my job for the Sinaloa cartel was to establish
20 contact with the Colombian cartels, bring the drugs to Mexico. My
21 work with El Chappo Guzman never involved killing or giving an order
22 for someone to be killed.
23 Q. Did you ever see anyone be killed?
24 A. No. That I found out that they had somebody killed, yes.
25 Q. Would El Chappo Guzman talk about it?

1517
51
1 A. He didn't talk about that, but his gunmen would speak of it with
2 me.
3 Q. How many gunmen did he have?
4 A. At this time?
5 Q. Yes, sir.
6 A. Well, at that time approximately he would have 10 or 12 people
7 always around him, and then when he went out, there would be
8 another 10 or 12.
9 Q. Going back. You were saying you were in charge of making
10 contact with the Colombian cartels and bringing cocaine into Mexico
11 and transporting it north. Did you -- as the planes were coming in,
12 were you in personal contact with the pilots or the guides?
13 A. From the moment they left Colombia.
14 Q. And did you have any code between you and them that you
15 would use besides what you mentioned earlier about women being
16 airplanes and that sort of thing?
17 A. Yes. Everything that was spoken was based on codes. Plus we
18 would always use high frequency, HF, radios that we would have in El
19 Chappo's office. And we would call by radio to the planes, and many
20 times even we would call directly to the ranches where they had the
21 planes as they were taking off.
22 Q. Did you have any sort of whistling code you would use?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. What would you use that for?
25 A. So that the Colombian pilots that was flying would know that
1518
52
1 everything was fine.
2 Q. Who would whistle?
3 A. Me.
4 Q. Can you give us an example of how it sounded. Like a bird?
5 A. I guess so.
6 Q. When you would be whistling like that, would the Colombians
7 respond to you at all?
8 A. We knew that a lot of the times the police, the American police,
9 would be listening in on the HF frequencies. So what we would try to
10 do, not to speak, not to give any details regarding anything. So we
11 had a code such as me whistling so they would know that everything
12 was fine. As long as they heard the whistling, they would know that
13 everything was fine, that the place they were going to everything was
14 fine, everything had been arranged. And they would answer me with
15 just one word, Gordo, Gordo, Gordo.
16 Q. You were Gordo?
17 A. I am Gordo.
18 Q. Were you called that by other people?
19 A. El Gordo, yes.
20 Q. What about Chappo Guzman? Did he call you Gordo?
21 A. Every day.
22 Q. Let me ask you, does the name Guillermo Salles (phonetic)
23 mean anything?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. Who is he?
1519
53
1 A. He was the person in charge of receiving drugs in Los Angeles.
2 He was detained in Los Angeles. He was offered a plea for 13 years.
3 He said no. He went to trial. He lost. They gave him 19 years. And
I
4 think he has one year to go.
5 Q. Would it be fair to say that all of the cocaine that was going
6 through Agua Prieta ended up in Los Angeles?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. You were talking earlier about planes being used. Did there
9 come a point in time when the organization stopped using planes so
10 much?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. How did that come about?
13 A. The government -- well, Chappo had information regarding the
14 Mexican police. The Mexican police informed Chappo that the United
15 States government were placing these planes that are called
16 intersection groups or interception and that the United States
17 government sent these planes to the city of Merida, Yucatan which is
18 in southern Mexico so that the planes that are coming in from
19 Colombia then automatically the planes that the U.S. has there would
20 go out and detect them.
21 And they would follow these planes throughout all of
22 Mexican territory. And as the plane is going through Mexican territory,
23 the plane with the drug, the American plane is following which is a
24 citation and they are following this plane through this laser camera.
25 I've never been there but it is what I know.

1520
54
1 MS. MATHESON: I object. That is speculation.
2 MR. FLANNIGAN: Given his role in the organization, how
3 much he said that he knows about it, I would submit that it is not
4 speculation. He knows --
5 THE COURT: You may ask how he knows.
6 BY MR. FLANNIGAN:
7 Q. How is it that you know about this situation?
8 A. Because Chappo Guzman told me so because he was told that.
9 He told me so I could explain this to the pilots that were coming from
10 Colombia or when I went to Colombia to tell them which way to come.
11 Because in addition to that, the U.S. put in a plane
12 called the P 3. It's a big plane with a dish on top. This plane would
13 leave -- would take off from Corpus Christi and it would go through the
14 entire Gulf of Mexico. It would cross through Oaxaca which is the
15 narrowest part of the Mexican republic. And it would go through the
16 Pacific all the way to Panama.
17 In Panama it would land. It would refuel. And it would
18 take off again and go through all of the Atlantic until it got to Corpus
19 Christi. That plane could detect all the planes that were coming from
20 Colombia and then automatically they would contact the intersection
21 ones in Yucatan, Mexico, a city. And the planes would take off and
22 would follow the planes that were coming from Colombia.
23 We also knew that there was a day --
24 Q. A day?
25 A. -- a day in which the planes would go down to Panama and they

1521
55
1 were there one or two days for maintenance. And the Colombians
2 knew what day it was because somebody in Panama would inform
3 them what day the plane was there for maintenance. So on that day
4 the planes could leave Colombia and not be detected.
5 Or the other way to bring the drugs via plane was to
6 send what was called a bait. I am explaining this to you because you
7 asked me. You asked me why the carrying by plane was stopped.
8 Q. Yes. "Anzuelo" would be a hook or bait?
9 A. A bait. Would be to send a plane without anything to Colombia
10 so that the two planes would think it carried drugs. They would follow
11 the plane without the drugs. And then on this side, the other four or
12 five planes would come in with the drugs.
13 Q. Did there come a point in time when El Chappo and the
14 Colombians stopped using planes to transport cocaine from Colombia
15 to Mexico?
16 A. Completely.
17 Q. That was because of these problems?
18 A. Well, I know Chappo stopped bringing the drugs in through
19 planes. I don't know if the Colombians stopped using planes.
20 Q. After when Chappo stopped bringing in cocaine with planes, how
21 did he start bringing in cocaine to Mexico?
22 A. By ship.
23 Q. Did he have his own ships?
24 A. He bought his own ships.
25 Q. Were you involved in that?

1522
56
1 A. No, sir. In the purchase of the ships?
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. No.
4 Q. You were talking about payments made to Mexican officials and
5 that there was never anything seized as far as you know --
6 THE COURT: Mr. Flannigan, let's stop here. We've gone
7 into the noon hour at this point.
8 Ladies and gentlemen, we will take our noon recess at
9 this time. We will reconvene at 1:30. Thank you. We stand at
10 recess.
12 THE COURT: Record will reflect that the jury has
14 Any record, Mr. Flannigan?
15 MR. FLANNIGAN: No, sir.
16 THE COURT: Ms. Matheson?
18 THE COURT: Thank you. We will see you all at 1:30.
19 Stand at recess.
20 Apparently one of the juror's wife has asked if she can
21 come into the courtroom. I don't know there is any way I can keep
22 her out of the courtroom. It's a public hearing. She is not on the
jury.
23 I will give the admonition at the end of the day not to
24 discuss it with anybody, family, et cetera. So I think that is about

all
25 we can do as far as that. I wanted to let you know that.

1523
57
2 THE COURT: Record will reflect the presence of the jury,
3 counsel and the defendant.
4 BY MR. FLANNIGAN:
5 Q. Mr. Martinez, I will show you what has been marked as Exhibit
6 43 for identification. Do you recognize the person portrayed in this
7 photograph?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. Who is it?
10 A. Joaquin Guzman-Loera or Archibaldo Guzman aka El Chappo
11 Guzman.
12 Q. Does this fairly and accurately portray the way he looked when
13 you knew him?
14 A. Exactly.
15 Q. And there's a person behind him. Can you see part of that
16 person? Do you recognize who that person might be?
17 A. I think that from the part that you can see of her face that it's
18 his way from Tepic, Estela.
19 MR. FLANNIGAN: I offer exit 43 into evidence.
20 THE COURT: Any objection?
21 MS. MATHESON: None, Your Honor.
22 THE COURT: 43 is admitted.
24 Q. You mentioned he had several wives. What were the names of
25 those wives?
1524
58
1 A. Alejandrina Salazar, Griselda Lopez and Estela Pena.
2 Q. You think this is Estela here behind El Chappo but you are not
3 sure?
4 A. I'm not sure but it looks like Estela.
5 Q. Did there ever come a point in time when you met a person by
6 the name of Mr. Camarena, Francisco Camarena?
7 A. Yes, sir, Francisco Rafael Camarena or attorney Camarena or El
8 Caballo.
9 Q. El Caballo, is that a nickname?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. What does it mean?
12 A. In English that's the horse.
13 Q. How did you get to meet this person, Francisco Rafael
14 Camarena?
15 A. When I met El Chappo Guzman in Guadalajara, Jalisco in 1987,
16 he introduced me to attorney Camarena. He was in charge of Chappo
17 Guzman's office in Guadalajara. That was the only office that El
18 Chappo had at this time plus one in Agua Prieta.
19 Q. Let me show you what has been marked as Exhibit 34 in
20 evidence. Do you recognize the person depicted in this photograph?
21 A. I wonder if you could enlarge it because I can't see anything
22 here. Okay, now I can. That's Francisco Rafael Camarena aka
23 attorney Camarena aka Caballo.
24 Q. Have you had occasion to meet Felipe Corona?
25 A. Yes, sir.
1525
59
1 Q. And how did you meet him?
2 A. I met him in Chappo Guzman's house when he lived in
3 Guadalajara, Jalisco on a street called El Faro. I don't remember the
4 residential complex. I don't remember the name of the complex, but
5 the name of the street was El Faro.
6 Q. How long after you met Camarena was it that you met
7 Mr. Corona?
8 A. Approximately some two or three days later.
9 Q. And do you see Mr. Corona in the courtroom here today?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. Can you point him out for the court?
12 A. He's sitting over there next to the lady over there with glasses
13 on.
14 Q. Next to the defense attorney?
15 A. I don't know who the defense attorney is, but he's sitting next to
16 the lady there.
17 Q. The lady seated behind me?
18 A. Yes, sir.
19 MR. FLANNIGAN: Your Honor, may the record reflect the
20 witness has pointed out the defendant?
21 THE COURT: It may.
23 Q. Under what circumstances was it again that you met the
24 defendant Corona?
25 A. The way I met him was that El Chappo introduced him in his
1526
60
1 house and said, look, I want to introduce you to the attorney -- or the
2 architect Corona.
3 Q. How many people were present on that occasion?
4 A. Besides El Chappo Guzman, there were other people there.
5 Ralph Santana was there. And also two or three of Chappo Guzman's
6 gunmen who have since been killed. And a compadre of El Chappo
7 they called Manuel.
8 Q. Did you have any communication at that point with the
9 defendant Corona?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Did you on other occasions see Mr. Corona?
12 A. On several occasions.
13 Q. Tell us about those occasions.
14 A. I saw him again in a supermarket that he built for Chappo
15 Guzman. It was like an all-purpose store with a warehouse and some
16 offices in the upstairs part. I saw him at El Chappo Guzman's farm
17 where he had a zoo. I saw him in Celaya, Guanajuato and I saw him
18 in Mexico.
19 Q. Did you ever see him, the defendant Corona, with Rafael
20 Camarena?
21 A. How did you mean did I see him?
22 Q. Did you see them together?
23 A. Yes, sir.
24 Q. And how was it that they were together?
25 A. Attorney Camarena was the person in charge. When I met

1527
61
1 attorney Camarena, I met him in a very small office in Guadalajara,
2 Jalisco. And afterwards, a few days later, architect Corona had
3 designed a supermarket and it had some offices in the upstairs and in
4 the rear it had a warehouse.
5 Q. You saw Mr. Corona and Mr. Camarena there together?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Was anyone else present?
8 A. There was a lot of people present.
9 Q. Now, you mentioned there were some offices above the grocery
10 store or the general store there. Can you describe those offices?
11 A. In the part below was the store part, the general grocery store.
12 The upstairs part were Chappo Guzman's offices and in the rear was a
13 warehouse.
14 Q. And how often would you -- had you been to El Chappo's offices
15 above the grocery store?
16 A. Some five or six times.
17 Q. Would Mr. Camarena be there on those occasions?
18 A. Always.
19 Q. What was Mr. Camarena's role with the organization at that time
20 when you were there in Guadalajara?
21 A. The same thing that I was going to do afterwards in Mexico. He
22 was in charge of taking phone calls and passing on messages to El
23 Chappo Guzman, to receive people who were looking to meet El
24 Chappo Guzman.
25 Q. And at that time where were you living?

1528
62
1 A. In Guadalajara.
2 Q. How often would you travel to -- you were living in Guadalajara?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. So how long after that was it before you went to head up the
5 office in Mexico City?
6 A. About six months.
7 Q. So would it be fair to say this was the period of time when you
8 were making those flights, a couple of flights you said you made from
9 Colombia to Mexico?
10 A. Exactly.
11 Q. Now, on occasion you had mentioned several times you had seen
12 Mr. Corona. Did you ever see him interact with El Chappo Guzman?
13 A. I don't understand the question.
14 Q. Did you see them communicating, talking, that sort of thing?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And can you describe for the jury how they would address each
17 other? And what I am referring to here is the use of the differential
18 "tu" or the more respectful "usted."
19 A. I never saw anybody except architect Corona refer to Mr. Chappo
20 Guzman in the informal "tu."
21 Q. How would you refer to Mr. Guzman?
22 A. In the beginning, "sir." Afterwards "compadre" because he was
23 the Godfather of my son.
24 Q. But after he became Godfather to your son, if you were going to
25 say "you," the word "you," would you use "tu" or use "usted"?
1529
63
1 A. "Usted." "How are 'usted,' compadre?"
2 Q. You said Corona would always use "tu"?
3 A. I always heard him say, "Hi, Joaquin, how are you?"
4 Q. You mentioned earlier this morning Francisco Salazar, the
5 brother-in-law of Chappo Guzman?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. What was his connection, if any, to the defendant Corona?
8 A. Maybe in the best of cases he met him.
9 Q. Mr. Salazar, what did he do for the cartel? What was his job?
10 A. He was in charge of storing or keeping the money and the
11 weapons that El Chappo Guzman had in Guadalajara.
12 Q. Now, you had mentioned that Mr. Corona had built this grocery
13 store with the offices above in Guadalajara.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Are you aware of any other structures that Mr. Corona designed
16 or built for the defendant -- for El Chappo Guzman?
17 A. Yes.
18 MS. MATHESON: I object. It calls for speculation.
19 THE COURT: No. If he knows he may answer.
21 Q. Go ahead and answer. What other structures are you aware of, if
22 you know, that defendant Corona built for El Chappo Guzman?
23 A. I saw him at a farm that El Chappo Guzman had. I saw him in
24 Celaya, Guanajuato fixing up two houses. I saw him building a
25 warehouse for Chappo Guzman between Celaya and Cortazar,

1530
64
1 Guanajuato.
2 Cortazar, Guanajuato is a city that is really close to
3 Celaya. And between those two cities, there's a little town called El
4 Chinaco. And there he built a warehouse for El Chappo Guzman.
5 Q. Now, when was it that you saw the defendant at this "bodega" or
6 this warehouse in El Chinaco?
7 A. Well, when they were building it.
8 Q. Was there anybody else that you knew who was working on that
9 warehouse?
10 A. Well, yeah, my father.
11 Q. What was your father doing?
12 A. My father had a construction business. Chappo hired him
13 through me so that he would build the roof of the warehouse.
14 Q. You saw your father working there?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You spoke to your father there?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And did you say you saw Corona there on the site as well?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What was Corona doing there?
21 A. They were building the warehouse. My dad was in charge of the
22 ceiling. And he was in charge of the fences, the floors, everything
23 else.
24 Q. When you say "he," you mean Corona?
25 A. Yes.
1531
65
1 Q. Did you speak to Corona, the defendant Corona, when he was
2 there at this site where your father was working?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Did you greet him?
5 A. No.
6 Q. And did you see what he was doing when he was there? In other
7 words, did you see him talking to anyone else, talking to workmen,
8 doing anything at all?
9 A. I saw him speaking with a common friend, with Ignacio Araujo.
10 I saw him giving orders to the workmen there at the site.
11 Q. When you say "giving orders to the workmen," how was he doing
12 that? How was defendant Corona doing that?
13 A. I couldn't hear anything he was saying because when you are
14 talking about a person listening from where I am here to where you
15 are, you can't hear what they are speaking about.
16 Q. Did you see him making any movements, gestures with his
17 hands at all?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. What was he doing?
20 A. He was attempting to explain to somebody something regarding
21 the construction.
22 Q. How many times at this particular warehouse in Chinaco did you
23 see Corona?
24 A. One time.
25 Q. Did you ever have a chance to see the work -- the warehouse
1532
66
1 after it was completed?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Would you describe that to the jury.
4 A. Yes. The warehouse is approximately 25 meters at its front by
5 approximately 50 meters in depth with walls that went beyond the
6 roof, the roof that my father made, which was made of galvanized
7 steel. A large door. And in front of that warehouse was a farm that
8 Chappo also bought.
9 Q. Did the farm have any structures on it?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Was there any purpose for the farm?
12 A. I imagine as entertainment.
13 Q. The warehouse itself, what was it used by El Chappo? For what
14 reason was it used by El Chappo?
15 A. I never saw Chappo have anything put in there normal. I mean,
16 you'd say something like I made this warehouse to store corn or beans
17 or to warehouse cement. I never saw Chappo put anything in there.
18 Q. Did you see El Chappo ever use the warehouse or are you aware
19 of El Chappo ever having used the warehouse there in El Chinaco?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Let's talk about some of the other structures that you referred to
22 where you are aware defendant Corona had built. It was the
23 warehouse here at Chinaco and you mentioned, I believe, some places
24 in Celaya, Guanajuato?
25 A. Yes.
1533
67
1 Q. What places are those?
2 A. There were two houses that the architect Corona bought in
3 Celaya, Guanajuato for Chappo Guzman. One is in Murillo Street,
4 Number 102. The other one is at Paseo Del Bosque Street, Number
5 102, in the neighborhood Paseo de Las Arboledas. Architect Corona
6 bought those two houses there. And he was also the one in charge of
7 buying the farm and the land for the warehouse.
8 Q. You are talking about back to Chinaco again?
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. So he bought the real estate where the structures were made.
11 Is that what you are saying?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Tell me about these two residences now in Celaya, Guanajuato.
14 A. They are located in the best residential areas in Celaya. I saw
15 him there. I saw him there doing repairs to the homes.
16 Q. To both houses?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did you speak to the defendant Corona?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Did you ever greet him while he was there?
21 A. No.
22 Q. What did you see -- let's talk about the one Colonia Murillo.
23 What did you see him doing -- defendant Corona doing there?
24 A. I saw him. They were digging. Giving him -- he was giving
25 orders to someone else to dig.

1534
68
1 Q. And how many people were there digging?
2 A. There were several.
3 Q. How were they digging?
4 A. With some shovels.
5 Q. How many times did you see Mr. Corona there at that Colonia
6 Murillo residence?
7 A. One time.
8 Q. Did you have occasion then after the structure was complete
9 to --
10 A. Pardon me. I saw him again later.
11 Q. At the same place?
12 A. Yes.
14 A. I saw him giving orders to put in some safes.
15 Q. Where were the safes being put?
16 A. I didn't know. I didn't know where they were going to put them.
17 I saw the safes outside of the house. They were bringing them inside.
18 Q. How big were these safes?
19 A. Well, a little bigger than you are or about your size.
20 Q. You were saying about something else?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Did you have a chance then to go to this Colonia Murillo and see
23 the residence after it was completed?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Would you describe it to the jury?

1535
69
1 A. Well, it was a regular residence. It was fixed up. It was painted.
2 It had floors, curtains, carpet.
3 Q. Where they were digging, where you had seen the defendant
4 giving orders to the men digging, what was there?
5 A. I saw they were bringing out a lot of dirt, but specifically I don't
6 know where they were digging. Afterwards I realized where.
7 Q. How did you realize where?
8 A. Oh, because later I went to live in that house.
9 Q. When did you live in that house?
10 A. When I was arrested.
11 Q. You were living there?
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. And can you describe the house?
14 A. It's a house that's on Murillo. It's a house that has half a block
15 of construction. It's a very pretty house of just one story with five
16 bedrooms, three living rooms, entertainment room, a garden.
17 Q. Did you discover where they were digging?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. What did you discover?
20 A. I realized they were making a -- well, what we call in Mexico
21 stash, "clavo." In the main bedroom, underneath the bed there was a
22 hydraulic system in which the bed would raise. People would enter
23 through a ladder to put the money away in the safes.
24 Q. How did you find this secret chamber?
25 A. Because nobody had told me they had built an underground or

1536
70
1 anything like that. When I got to the house, I knew that they had
2 done some construction there because I saw the architect Corona
3 there. And when I went to make my bed, I realized that the mattress
4 didn't fit. So I started to try to make the mattress fit and then I
5 realized that it was a hydraulic system.
6 Q. Did you figure out how to make the hydraulics work?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. How was that?
9 A. Through batteries or an electrical system.
10 Q. How would you make the bed rise up to reveal the secret
11 chamber?
12 A. I had to make a hole through the bed, put some new batteries
13 and lift the bed with the hydraulic system.
14 Q. Was there any buttons or anything to push?
15 A. Yes, a switch.
16 Q. Where was the switch?
17 A. On the wall.
18 Q. Let's talk about the other residence in Celaya, Guanajuato where
19 you had seen the defendant, Paseo Del Bosque. Tell us about that.
20 A. It has the same hydraulic system in the main bedroom. It lifts
21 in the same way. It works the same way as in the other house.
22 Q. What did you see the defendant Corona doing over there?
23 A. Giving orders to certain construction workers. We had a
24 common friend. His name was Ignacio Araujo. He would make
25 arrangements with Ignacio Araujo to enter the house, for the workers
1537
71
1 to enter or for them to leave.
2 Q. Just go back for a second to this warehouse in El Chinaco. Did
3 you ever discover any secret "clavos" there?
4 A. There I didn't discover. There Ignacio Araujo showed me there
5 was an underground area.
6 Q. Can you describe that to the jury.
7 A. One time we went out to the farm and we crossed there in front
8 of the warehouse. Ignacio Araujo showed me that there was a stash
9 place there to hide the drugs.
10 Q. Describe the entrance to that stash place.
11 A. It's a hydraulic system where the floor lifts, you go down
12 through a ladder and you've got a warehouse down there.
13 Q. Did you see anything stored down there?
14 A. Just residues of marijuana.
15 Q. Let me talk now about the warehouse and the grocery store in
16 Guadalajara. Are you aware of any secret rooms that were there?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Would you describe that.
19 A. It was a hydraulic system in the warehouse behind the grocery
20 store. That's where the warehouse was. There in the warehouse there
21 was a secret room that was used to store drugs.
22 Q. Let's go now to the zoo, El Chappo's zoo in Guadalajara. You had
23 mentioned that is one of the structures or one of the things that the
24 defendant had done for El Chappo.
25 A. Yes.
1538
72
1 Q. Did you ever see the defendant Corona at the zoo?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Would you describe the zoo.
4 A. It was a very pretty farm with a very pretty house, a very big
5 pool, and some land there to plant either corn or beans. And in the
6 back there were the cages for these exotic animals that Chappo had,
7 like lions, tigers, panthers, crocodiles, bears.
8 Q. What would El Chappo use the zoo for?
9 A. For his entertainment.
10 Q. Such as parties?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did you ever attend any parties there?
13 A. Several.
14 Q. Now, let me ask you about El Chappo's use of drugs. Would you
15 ever see him using drugs?
16 A. Chappo?
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. Personally?
19 Q. Yes.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. On what occasions?
22 A. At the beginning when I had first met him, he used cocaine.
23 After that he withdrew from it.
24 Q. When you would see him -- strike that. How often would you
25 see El Chappo Guzman?

1539
73
1 A. Well, almost daily.
2 Q. This is when you were in Guadalajara?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. How about after you went to --
5 A. No. When I was in Guadalajara, when I was in Guadalajara,
6 Chappo Guzman had not totally finished the zoo yet. They were
7 constructing it, building it. Later, when we went to Mexico City, they
8 finished the zoo.
9 Q. Let me ask you, when you were in Guadalajara, how often would
10 you see El Chappo Guzman?
11 A. Every two or three days.
12 Q. What about after you went to Mexico to become in charge of the
13 office there, Mexico City? How often would you see El Chappo
14 Guzman?
15 A. When I went to Mexico City, I almost had daily dealings with
16 Chappo Guzman.
17 Q. Contact?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. How about in person? How often would you see him in person?
20 A. Out of a week, four days.
21 Q. So you mentioned earlier that he was flying around going here
22 and going there. Would it be fair to say that he would return often to
23 Mexico City?
24 A. Yes. He used to move around in a jet, in his private jet. He
25 ended up having three jets. And when you fly in a jet, you move in
1540
74
1 high speeds. You can be in three cities in one day.
2 Q. Did you continue to meet with him on occasion in Guadalajara
3 after you had gone to Mexico City?
4 A. Yes. When I went to Mexico City, he went to Mexico City.
5 Q. When you say he went to Mexico City, what do you mean by
6 that?
7 A. That he moved his office from Guadalajara to Mexico City. And
8 he took one of his families to Mexico. And that his business started
to
9 revolve around Mexico City.
10 Q. Did Mr. Camarena continue to be in charge of operations in
11 Guadalajara then after you moved to Mexico City?
12 A. No.
13 Q. What happened to Mr. Camarena?
14 A. He went to Agua Prieta.
15 Q. How do you know that?
16 A. Chappo told me.
17 Q. Before we get into Agua Prieta, you were describing various
18 underground chambers and structures with the hydraulics that
19 Mr. Corona had built. Are you aware of any others that you haven't
20 yet told the jury?
21 MS. MATHESON: I object. That assumes facts not in
22 evidence that Mr. Corona built the hydraulic system.
23 THE COURT: Sustained.
25 Q. Are you aware of any other secret chambers with hydraulic lifts
1541
75
1 on structures that Corona was working on?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Which places are those?
4 A. A tunnel in Agua Prieta.
5 Q. Other than the tunnel in Agua Prieta, are you aware of any
6 others?
7 A. No.
8 Q. And how do you know about the tunnel in Agua Prieta?
9 A. Well, I knew about it because Chappo told me.
10 Q. What did Chappo tell you?
11 A. He said they were crossing the drugs through vehicles with false
12 compartments. And on one occasion when I was talking to Colombia,
13 with one of the Colombian cartels, Chappo said, "Gordo," because we
14 were not compadres yet, "now I have a fucking cool crossing. The
15 architect Corona made a fucking cool tunnel."
16 Q. Did he give you any instructions with regard to what you should
17 tell the Colombians?
18 A. "Tell them to send all the drugs that they can send because now
19 we are going to bring a shitload of drugs."
20 Q. After that did you notice an increase in the amount of drugs that
21 were sent?
22 A. Absolutely. Not just of the drugs. The planes that arrived. If
23 three planes arrived a week, now ten were arriving.
24 Q. And what about the speed with which the drugs were taken to
25 Los Angeles? Did you notice any increase in that?

1542
76
1 A. Chappo, in Colombia, they quit calling him Joaquin. They
2 started calling him the fast one, "El Rapido," because before the planes
3 were arriving back in Colombia on the return, the cocaine was already
4 in Los Angeles.
5 Q. Did you during this period of time ever travel to Agua Prieta?
6 A. Yes, I went to Agua Prieta on several occasions.
7 Q. How many times if you recall?
8 A. Well, since I started going there, since the first time, I think
it
9 was about five or six times.
10 Q. Did you ever go with El Chappo Guzman?
11 A. Yes, two or three times.
12 Q. Would you travel together?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. How would you get from Mexico, if it was Mexico you were going
15 from, to Agua Prieta?
16 A. Well, the first times we would fly to Hermosillo. And from there
17 we would go to Agua Prieta. Other times I went directly there with
18 him on the plane, the Cessna 206. And another time I went with him
19 in the jet. There we would get out in Nogales and go to Agua Prieta.
20 Then another time we went to Los Angeles and to Agua Prieta on the
21 way back.
22 Q. Let's talk about that last time when you went to Los Angeles.
23 How did you get back to Agua Prieta?
24 A. We returned by land. That was the first time I went to Agua
25 Prieta with El Chappo. First he met me in Tijuana. We went to Los

1543
77
1 Angeles to buy a plane, a Cessna 206 -- 210. Then we went to Las
2 Vegas. We bought the plane. We went to Las Vegas. We went back
3 to Los Angeles and we went to Agua Prieta by land.
4 Q. When you say "by land," you went in a vehicle driving from Los
5 Angeles or Las Vegas?
6 A. Yes. I was in the car with El Chappo, a car that they gave him in
7 Los Angeles.
8 Q. What kind of car was it?
9 A. It was a Cadillac Aztec.
10 Q. Did you drive through Tucson?
11 A. No. He was driving.
12 Q. But did you pass through Tucson?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And what did you do then when you got to Agua Prieta?
15 A. I went to a hotel, the Hacienda Hotel. He stayed at the home of
16 Hector and Arturo Beltran.
17 Q. The other times now when you went to Agua Prieta with El
18 Chappo, where would you stay?
19 A. At the Hacienda Hotel.
20 Q. Would you describe where the Hacienda Hotel is in relation to
21 the United States border?
22 A. It was close. It was close to the crossing. It's sort of a rural
23 kind of hotel.
24 Q. When you say "rural," what do you mean by that?
25 A. It's like a hotel and it's got the rooms all on the way around like
1544
78
1 this. So you get to the second floor through stairs. And the cars park
2 right in front of the rooms.
3 Q. Is it right inside of the city of Agua Prieta though?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. So when you say "rural," you don't mean it is out in the country?
6 A. No, but, well, Agua Prieta is in the country.
7 Q. But I mean the hotel itself is located within the city?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Was there anything that you would be doing at the hotel on El
10 Chappo's behalf?
11 A. No, nothing, absolutely nothing, just waiting there to receive
12 orders to see what we were going to do.
13 Q. Now, earlier you were talking about the times that you had seen
14 the defendant Corona and you described different times when you saw
15 him working on different structures and also you described the first
16 time when you met him personally and Mr. -- I can't think of the guy's
17 name, the one from New York was there.
18 A. Ralph. The name of the man from New York was Ralph Santana.
19 Q. Where was he from originally?
20 A. From Puerto Rico.
21 Q. Other than that time, what other times did you have personal
22 contact with the defendant Corona?
23 A. Counselor, I did not have any personal contact with him.
24 Q. I am talking more like you were in the same room with him. You
25 were in the same area where he was.

1545
79
1 A. Where who was?
2 Q. Where Felipe Corona was.
3 A. Felipe Corona I met him at the home of Chappo Guzman as the
4 architect Felipe Corona. He was doing his construction, his things for
5 Chappo Guzman, his hydraulic system, his stashes. Nobody said to
6 me this gentleman here, this so-and-so is Felipe Corona. I met him as
7 the architect Mr. Felipe Corona.
8 In the times I saw him, he didn't greet me because he
9 was doing his business and I was doing mine. I didn't go up to him
10 and say, "Look, I'm Gordo. I'm going to fly to Colombia. I'm going to
11 bring drugs." He also didn't come to me and say, "I'm the architect
12 Corona and I'm building this passage."
13 But later Chappo told me. I saw him there building
14 these constructions.
15 Q. But as you were testifying earlier, you had seen interaction
16 between him and El Chappo Guzman, that he would refer to El Chappo
17 as "tu." Tell us about those occasions when you were present and you
18 saw him interacting with El Chappo Guzman.
19 A. I saw him on several occasions. I saw him at the store talking
20 with Joaquin, saying, "Hi, Joaquin. How are you doing? I'm going to
21 do this. I need this for the furniture. I'm going to buy this for
22 tomorrow."
23 I saw him at the farm too talking to Joaquin. "Hello,
24 Joaquin. How are you doing?"
25 I saw him at Joaquin's house. I saw him at the store

1546
80
1 with Joaquin. At the farm with Joaquin. I saw him giving orders to
2 some people that were there with him. He never came up to me and
3 said, "Gordo, come here. Let me show you what I am doing." I went
4 behind him to see what he was doing.
5 Q. When you would see him, how many other people would
6 generally be around him and El Chappo?
7 A. Counselor, Chappo Guzman is never alone. Usually in general
8 he's got at least eight people around him.
9 Q. These are bodyguards?
10 A. Bodyguards and gunmen who execute people.
11 Q. When you say he has at least eight people around him, how
12 many people does he generally on an average have with him, El
13 Chappo Guzman?
14 A. Well, look, I'm going to explain something to you. When I met
15 Chappo, he had at least eight people with him. And before they
16 detained Chappo, there would be a vehicle right here in front, another
17 one in back, another one here, another one over here, with people
18 protecting the car where Chappo was.
19 If you were to count the people in each one of the cars,
20 well, if there is four people in four cars, there is at least 16 people.
21 Q. And when you were around El Chappo Guzman and Corona when
22 they were together, did El Chappo ever talk about narcotics deals?
23 A. Chappo always talks about drug business wherever he is. With
24 whatever people he's with, he's talking about drugs.
25 Q. Do you recall him ever talking about people being killed?

1547
81
1 A. No.
2 Q. Did you ever see El Chappo Guzman pay any money to the
3 defendant Corona?
4 A. I saw Chappo give him -- on one or two occasions give money to
5 the architect Corona.
6 Q. Tell us about those occasions.
7 A. The time I saw him at the house, the time I met Mr. Corona, I
8 saw Chappo Guzman give him money. And the other occasion that I
9 saw Chappo give him money was at the grocery store. And I know it
10 was money because he said, "Here. Here is this money for what you
11 asked me." I don't know what he had asked him for.
12 Q. And the money, how was it given? Was it in bags or in suitcases
13 or how was that?
14 A. An attache case at the house and a bag like with plastic.
15 Q. Now, the times that you were around Mr. Corona, you said that
16 you didn't have personal contact with him but that you were watching
17 him. Is that what you are saying?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Can you tell us any personal things that you observed about
20 Mr. Corona?
21 A. Like what?
22 Q. Like what kind of car he drove, what kind of drink he drank,
23 whether he had his hair well kept, what suits he wore, whether he was
24 manicured, personal things.
25 A. Mr. Corona used to use a New Yorker, gray colored New Yorker.
1548
82
1 Q. Vehicle?
2 A. The vehicle. Mr. Corona was always very well dressed with a
3 suit, a sports suit, elegant, with an attache in his hand.
4 Q. Let me show you what has been marked as Exhibit 74-A in
5 evidence. If I can publish it to the jury. Do you recognize this
6 photograph?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. What does it show?
9 A. Felipe Corona.
10 Q. Does that fairly show him the way he looked at that time when
11 you knew him when he was in Guadalajara?
12 A. Just like that. All he needs is a suit.
13 Q. Let me show you now what's been marked for identification as
14 Exhibit 16. Do you recognize the person in this photo?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Who is that?
17 A. His name is Luis Ruiz.
18 Q. Who is Luis Ruiz?
19 A. Luis Ruiz was the person in charge of receiving the telephones --
20 Chappo's office in Agua Prieta, the person in charge.
21 Q. Did you ever visit with him on the occasions that El Chappo sent
22 you to Agua Prieta or you went with El Chappo to Agua Prieta?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Does this --
25 A. On one occasion.
1549
83
1 Q. Does this photograph fairly and accurately show the way Mr. Luis
2 Ruiz appeared at that time to you in Agua Prieta?
3 A. He looks a little fatter.
4 Q. Other than that, does this appear to be Mr. Luis Ruiz?
5 A. Yes.
6 MR. FLANNIGAN: It is in evidence. I ask it be shown to
7 the jury.
8 THE COURT: It is published.
9 BY MR. FLANNIGAN:
10 Q. You said you had met Luis Ruiz in Agua Prieta on one occasion.
11 He was in charge of the office there in Agua Prieta. What was your
12 contact with him on that occasion that you saw him in Agua Prieta?
13 A. Well, we just talked a lot about El Chappo, about how he was
14 doing because I would speak with him a lot.
15 Q. When you say you would speak to him, you mean Luis Ruiz?
16 A. Yes. Every time I needed something from Agua Prieta, I would
17 speak with him. He would pick up the telephone and he was in charge
18 of relaying messages to Arturo and Hector Beltran.
19 Q. Can you describe Hector Beltran?
20 A. He's a tall man. At this time he had a beard. He's good-looking,
21 well dressed.
22 Q. Let me show you what has been marked for identification as
23 Exhibit 122. Do you recognize the person shown in this photograph?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. Who is that?
1550
84
1 A. Arturo Beltran-Leyva.
2 Q. That would be the brother of Hector Beltran?
3 A. Exactly.
4 Q. Is it your testimony that he also was in Agua Prieta at that time?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 Q. And what exactly was their role with the organization there, the
7 Beltran brothers?
8 A. They were the ones who controlled the passage of the drugs and
9 who received the money.
10 Q. Did they have any role with anything once the drugs passed into
11 the United States, the shipments to Los Angeles?
12 A. From the moment the drugs arrived in Agua Prieta, they were in
13 charge of them until Los Angeles.
14 Q. Let me show you now what has been marked as Exhibit 63.
15 MR. FLANNIGAN: I am sorry. I offer Exhibit 122 into
16 evidence at this time.
17 THE COURT: Any objection as to 122?
19 THE COURT: 122 shall be admitted. 122 is?
20 MR. FLANNIGAN: Arturo Beltran.
21 THE COURT: Do you wish to publish?
22 MR. FLANNIGAN: Yes, sir.
24 Q. Now, you mentioned earlier today that you had met with the
25 mayor of Agua Prieta, Bernardino Meza, who had given you money
1551
85
1 there. Did you have any other occasions where you met with
2 Mr. Bernardino Meza in Agua Prieta?
3 A. Every time I went with El Chappo Guzman to Agua Prieta, I
4 would greet Mr. Meza.
5 Q. Did you ever see Mr. Corona in Agua Prieta?
6 A. No, sir.
7 Q. Did you ever see Mr. Camarena in Agua Prieta?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Did you ever see the tunnel in Agua Prieta?
10 A. No, sir.
11 Q. Let me show you now what has been marked as Exhibit 63 for
12 identification. Do you recognize this person?
13 A. Yes, sir.
14 Q. Who is it?
15 A. Arturo Guzman-Loera, the brother of Joaquin Guzman.
16 Q. Is this the same person you were referring to earlier that had a
17 million-plus dollars taken from him at Douglas?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Who is dead at the present time?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Does Exhibit 63 fairly and accurately represent the way
22 Mr. Guzman looked at the time that -- Mr. Arturo Guzman looked at the
23 time you knew him?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did he go by any nickname?

1552
86
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What was that?
3 A. "El Pollo," the chicken.
4 MR. FLANNIGAN: I offer Exhibit 63 in evidence and ask
5 that it be published to the jury.
6 THE COURT: Any objection?
8 THE COURT: 63 is admitted and may be published.
9 BY MR. FLANNIGAN:
10 Q. Now, other than at Agua Prieta, were there any other places at
11 that time that El Chappo Guzman was passing his cocaine or his drugs
12 into the United States?
13 A. He would sometimes use Nogales. Are you referring to me about
14 the time with the tunnel? Are we speaking of the years '89 to '91?
15 Q. Yes, the time of the tunnel.
16 A. It was the only place for which he crossed the drugs.
17 Q. Agua Prieta?
18 A. Yes, sir.
19 Q. In your capacity as the -- working in El Chappo's office in Mexico
20 City, did you become aware of any seizures of narcotics in the United
21 States?
22 A. Yes. Well, I became aware of several.
23 Q. Would it be fair to say you were aware of every seizure that took
24 place?
25 A. Yes, because they were to report all confiscations to me so I

1553
87
1 could inform the Colombians that the merchandise had been lost.
2 Q. How would you prove to the Colombians there had been
3 seizures?
4 A. Well, in the beginning it was very easy because every time that
5 the United States government would seize drugs from the Mexicans,
6 they would put it in the newspaper. They would say the government
7 seized X amount of cocaine in such and such a place. And that served
8 as an example for the Colombians and it would be your passport and
9 say, here, we lost 500 kilos and here is the proof.
10 But afterwards the United States government stopped
11 publishing what the seizures were and it became a war with the
12 Colombians because they thought we were stealing the drugs.
13 Q. How were you able to resolve that?
14 A. Just on the basis of trust.
15 Q. And without any newspapers, without any documentation or
16 anything?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Now, you said you were aware of various seizures that took place
19 in the United States. Were you aware of any large seizures of
20 narcotics that had gone through the tunnel?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Describe that to us.
23 A. What I would like to ask you is that I don't recall the exact
24 amount but it was from 900 to 1,000 kilos in Phoenix which they
25 grabbed after they had crossed it through the tunnel. El Chappo told
1554
88
1 me, "Compadre, we lost a thousand kilos. We lost them. They caught
2 them on the truck because that dumb ass Camarena left the door of
3 the house open and a policeman went by and saw the pool table on
4 the ceiling. They followed the truck and now they know there is a
5 stash there."
6 Q. After El Chappo told you that, did he indicate whether he was
7 going to do anything in response to that?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Did he indicate to you whether he was going to go to Agua Prieta
10 personally?
11 A. No.
12 Q. El Chappo?
13 A. I am speaking of El Chappo.
14 Q. What happened after the seizure occurred in Phoenix?
15 A. They found the tunnel.
16 Q. How did you find out about that?
17 A. El Chappo told me.
18 Q. What exactly did El Chappo tell you?
19 A. "This is fucking over. They have discovered the tunnel."
20 Q. And did El Chappo do anything in response to that?
21 A. Chappo commented, "It's the fault of this dumb ass Camarena
22 who left the house -- the door of the house open."
23 Q. So then what happened after that?
24 A. He told me this afterwards. Well, here I don't want you or the
25 jury to become confused. These words were spoken to me by El

1555
89
1 Chappo after they had grabbed the thousand kilos of cocaine. El
2 Chappo flew immediately to Agua Prieta. He didn't tell me, "I am
3 going to fly to Agua Prieta."
4 He went to Agua Prieta because there was a lot of
5 cocaine that they were going to cross through the tunnel. Somebody
6 told him that for the 900 or 1,000 kilos they had found, they had
7 already discovered the tunnel. He went to move the cocaine that he
8 had for crossing under the tunnel. He moved around nine tons of
9 cocaine that he had there. He took them to Nogales, Sonora.
10 And when he went back to Mexico City, he told me,
11 "Compadre, this is over. This is fucking over. They found the tunnel
12 and it's Camarena's fault." That's when I knew that they had
13 discovered the tunnel.
14 Q. Did you ever see Camarena after that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Where did you see him?
17 A. In Mexico City.
18 Q. Under what circumstances?
19 A. That he was real frightened and El Chappo was trying to hide
20 him and he did hide him because he told him he couldn't show his face
21 for anything because they were going to fuck him up and he told him
22 to go to Mazatlan. And at that time Camarena was the person in
23 charge of the ships in Mazatlan because that's where he could hide
24 out.
25 He actually traveled on the ships because El Chappo

1556
90
1 knew that the United States government knew about him. And he told
2 him to hide there. He told him, "Now you in Mazatlan will be the
3 person in charge of requesting shipments by sea." Chappo knew
4 perfectly well when somebody was in trouble with the police or the
5 government of the United States. Chappo had information that he
6 received from the Mexican police.
7 MS. MATHESON: Excuse me. I object as to narrative.
8 There has been no question asked.
9 THE COURT: Sustained. He has answered the question.
11 Q. You were stating that El Chappo had sources in the Mexican
12 police to receive information from the Americans?
13 A. Of course. May I continue?
14 Q. How do you know that?
15 A. El Chappo and I were close, counselor. He would comment
16 things to me.
17 Q. What did El Chappo tell you about his sources of information?
18 A. When the U.S. government would tell something to Mexican
19 commanders regarding some person or regarding some drug shipment
20 that they knew was coming, the police would tell him and would say,
21 look, they are looking for such-and-such and so-and-so.
22 I'm going to tell you something they would say. "You're
23 receiving a ship that is loaded with cocaine and a ship that is coming
24 up the Pacific. The ship's name is Maria." Chappo would say no, all
25 right. Because they would say, "The guys from the DEA, they know of
1557
91
1 this ship. So if it's yours, they're going to fuck it up."
2 Q. Let me ask you, after the tunnel was discovered, did you see
3 Mr. Corona again?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. When was that?
6 A. About two months after the discovery of the tunnel.
7 Q. Where did you see him?
8 A. In Mexico City.
9 Q. How did it come about that you saw him in Mexico?
10 A. El Chappo -- there were two of us that were in charge of the
11 Mexico City office, Manuel Trillo and myself. He told Manuel Trillo,
12 "Locate architect Corona. Bring him to Mexico City and convince him
13 to stay in Mexico City because they are going to fuck him up because
14 the Americans already know about the tunnel."
15 Manuel Trillo found architect Corona. Architect Corona
16 arrived to Mexico City. He was picked up at the airport. An attempt
17 was made to convince him to remain in Mexico City.
18 Q. You said he was picked up at the airport. Who picked him up at
19 the airport?
20 A. Manuel Trillo and me.
21 Q. What time of the day was it that you picked him up?
22 A. At about noon.
23 Q. And where did you first see the architect Corona?
24 A. What do you mean the first place?
25 Q. Was it in the airport, outside the airport?

1558
92
1 A. Outside the airport.
2 Q. Describe the meeting that you had with him.
3 A. We went with him to talk in the car. I was driving. Manuel Trillo
4 was next to me. He got into the car.
5 Q. Architect -- Mr. Corona?
6 A. Mr. Corona. We went to the colonia neighborhood and there we
7 tried to convince him to live in Mexico City because there was
8 information that they wanted to arrest him.
9 Q. What did Felipe Corona say to that?
10 A. That he didn't care. That he had his family and that he needed
11 to be in Guadalajara.
12 Q. How long did this conversation last?
13 A. About two hours.
14 Q. Do you remember anything else about the conversation?
15 A. Yes. He was offered a place to live, money to live and he said
16 no.
17 Q. Did defendant Corona say anything about the tunnel?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did Manuel Trillo mention the tunnel?
20 A. Manuel Trillo.
21 Q. What did he say about the tunnel?
22 A. Manuel Trillo attempted to convince him to remain in Mexico City
23 because they had discovered the tunnel. And El Chappo gave Manuel
24 Trillo orders to tell him that they had information regarding him, to
25 please convince him to remain in Mexico City because they were going
1559
93
1 to arrest him. He didn't want to.
2 Q. What was the last thing Corona said then?
3 A. He said, "I don't care."
4 Q. So you say the conversation lasted about two hours. What
5 happened then at the end of two hours?
6 A. He caught a cab and we went to the office to let Chappo know
7 that the gentleman had not accepted.
8 Q. What was Chappo's reaction to that?
9 A. He said, "He didn't want to? Let him get fucked."
10 Q. Did you ever see Mr. Corona after that until today?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. When was that?
13 A. A little while ago.
14 Q. Today?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, going back to the tunnel itself, how long was that tunnel in
17 operation?
18 A. I don't know exactly when they finished it. It was discovered
19 somewhere between '90 and '91. But I'm almost sure that tunnel was
20 operating almost two years.
21 Q. Was any cocaine sent through the tunnel that you know of that
22 was not El Chappo Guzman's?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. What is that?
25 A. El Chappo would do favors for Amado Carrillo and cross drugs for
1560
94
1 the Juarez cartel.
2 Q. How many tons of drugs of cocaine did El Chappo pass for
3 Amado Carrillo?
4 A. I don't know exactly how many tons.
5 Q. After that, after the tunnel was discovered, what did you do?
6 A. I continued with El Chappo.
7 Q. How did El Chappo get his drugs across the line after that, after
8 the tunnel was discovered?
9 A. He came up with another way of crossing drugs through cans of
10 jalapeno peppers.
12 A. A factory was built where all the used machinery was bought. It
13 was put to package jalapeno chiles. One of the brands that we knew
14 was crossing to the United States was cleaned. We took the labels off
15 the box and the labels and the boxes were sent to be reproduced, to
16 be made. The cocaine was cut. The kilo of cocaine was cut with these
17 paper cutters or electric cutters that Chappo bought. The kilo was cut
18 this way and then it was folded. It was placed inside the can of chiles.
19 The can was sealed, labeled, packaged in the box and it was placed in
20 the middle of true cans of chiles.
21 Q. And then?
22 A. And so the drugs were crossed every 20 days as if they were
23 jalapeno peppers.
24 Q. Through the port of entries?
25 A. Yes, normally.
1561
95
1 Q. Any other ways of bringing cocaine into the United States that El
2 Chappo came up with?
3 A. Yes, through -- yes.
4 Q. Like what?
5 A. In rolls of wire that was for -- what do you call it? In Mexico
we
6 call them rolls of wires. And within the mesh of the wire, you could
7 put 30 kilos or so. And then send it from the hardware store.
8 Q. How long then did you work for El Chappo Guzman?
9 A. From 1986 to 1993 when he was detained.
10 Q. After he was detained, what did you do?
11 A. Mr. Arturo Beltran became the boss.
12 Q. Is he the one that is on the screen right now?
13 A. No, sir. It was one that you showed two or three pictures before
14 this.
15 Q. Arturo Beltran, how long did you work for him?
16 A. Approximately six months.
18 A. Then Guero Palma found me.
19 Q. Who is Guero Palma?
20 A. Another one of the most sought after drug traffickers by the
21 United States.
22 Q. You say he found you. And what happened then?
23 A. He said if I could do the same work I was doing for El Chappo, to
24 talk to the people in Colombia and do the same work for him.
25 Q. So did you do that?

1562
96
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. How long did you work for El Guero Palma then?
3 A. Until I was detained in 1998.
4 Q. And when you were detained, what were the charges against
5 you?
6 A. Me, in Mexico, I don't have charges. I was detained at the
7 request of the United States government for drug crimes. My charges
8 were conspiracy to introduce and possess cocaine and money
9 laundering.
10 Q. Did any of that have to do with the cocaine that was brought
11 into the United States in chile cans?
12 A. Yes, sir.
13 Q. Were you aware of the assassination of Cardinal Posados?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Did that happen before you were detained?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And how did you find out about that?
18 A. Because they were going to kill Chappo Guzman.
19 Q. The cardinal was killed instead?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Now, when was it again that you were arrested and detained?
22 A. June 8, 1998.
23 Q. Did you attempt to fight extradition in Mexico?
24 A. Of course I fought it.
25 Q. How long did you fight it?

1563
97
1 A. Three years.
2 Q. Did anything change after Vicente Fox became president of
3 Mexico?
4 MS. MATHESON: I object as to relevance, Your Honor.
6 BY MR. FLANNIGAN:
7 Q. There came a certain point in time when Mexico extradited you
8 to the United States?
9 A. Yes, when Fox took power.
10 Q. And did anything happen to you after that order of extradition or
11 about the time that order of extradition was granted?
12 A. No, before then.
13 Q. What happened?
14 A. They tried to kill me.
15 Q. Who tried to kill you?
16 A. Chappo Guzman.
17 Q. Describe exactly what happened.
18 A. It was the organization, Chappo Guzman's organization.
19 Q. What happened?
20 A. They wanted to kill me. I received 17 stabs and two grenades.
21 The grenades that explode.
22 Q. Tell us about that. How many times was an attempt made on
23 your life?
24 A. Four. The first time I was stabbed seven times.
25 Q. Where were you located at that time?

1564
98
1 A. In the preventative detention center orient. It's a prison in
2 Mexico.
3 Q. Mexico City?
4 A. Yes, sir.
5 Q. So you say they stabbed you seven times?
6 A. The first time.
7 Q. You were in prison. And where were you in the prison at that
8 time?
9 A. I was in my cell.
10 Q. And how many people tried to stab you?
11 A. Four.
12 Q. Did you see them?
13 A. Of course.
14 Q. Did you know them?
15 A. Well, they were prisoners.
16 Q. Fellow prisoners?
17 A. Well, fellow, no. They were prisoners.
18 Q. What about the second time?
19 A. After the first three months, I got another five.
20 Q. Also by prisoners?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. In the same prison?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. After the first attempt on your life, wasn't there any effort to
25 protect you or move you or anything like that?

1565
99
1 A. Yes. They moved me to another prison. And when I was in the
2 other prison, they sent somebody with two grenades to throw them
3 outside of my cell. They couldn't enter the cell. He couldn't enter

the
4 cell so he threw the grenades outside of the cell. I saw the grenades.
5 I jumped towards the bathroom. The grenades exploded. Half the
6 building fell down.
7 Q. Was that the third time, the third attempt on your life?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. What about the fourth attempt?
10 A. No, there were three.
11 Q. You said you were stabbed 17 times?
12 A. 17, 18 times.
13 Q. And what wounds did you receive?
14 A. Can I show you on my body respectfully?
15 MR. FLANNIGAN: Can he do it?
16 THE COURT: Do you wish him to do that?
17 MR. FLANNIGAN: Yes.
18 THE COURT: You may go ahead, sir.
19 THE WITNESS: Forgive me. I don't have a good body.
21 Q. Where are they? If you would point them out with your fingers.
22 Were any of your organs punctured?
23 A. Several.
24 Q. What organs?
25 A. My lungs, the intestine and my pancreas.

1566
100
1 Q. Now, do you have any idea as to why El Chappo would want to
2 kill you?
3 A. Well, I don't know. Could have been because of what I knew.
4 Could be because he didn't like me. Could be because I could talk.
5 The truth is I don't know.
6 Q. Did you ever have any personal problems with him regarding his
7 wife Griselda?
8 A. Well, Griselda was living in one of my houses in Mexico. When I
9 was detained, nobody helped me in terms of attorneys and the only
10 thing I was getting was stab wounds. So I asked Griselda for the
11 house so I could sell it to pay for attorneys and I think he was
12 bothered by that. And from then on I didn't know anything else about
13 El Chappo.
14 Q. Do you have any idea as to why El Chappo would try to kill you
15 and not other people who have been extradited?
16 A. No.
17 Q. When was it then that you were brought to the United States?
18 A. June 25 of 2000.
19 Q. You are currently in the witness protection program?
20 A. Yes, sir. Counselor, I decided to cooperate with the government
21 of the United States from the first day I was extradited.
22 Q. What has your cooperation consisted of?
23 A. Well, about all the information and everything I know.
24 Q. Have you met with prosecutors and agents and that sort of
25 thing?
1567
101
1 A. Yes, sir. Counselor, I've met with many agents and many
2 prosecutors from different states.
3 Q. Have you given testimony before the grand jury?
4 A. Several times.
5 Q. Other than this trial right now, have you given any testimony to
6 any trials?
7 A. No, because they have cooperated.
8 Q. And by cooperating with the government, what is it that you
9 hope to achieve?
10 A. The government has never promised anything to me. They have
11 never said we will reduce your sentence or we are going to do this or
12 do that. The only thing they promised -- the only thing they offered
is
13 to make a recommendation to the judge.
14 Q. And if your sentence is reduced, would you remain in witness
15 protection for the rest of your life?
16 A. Forever. I cannot return to Mexico.
17 Q. But nothing specific has been promised to you?
18 A. Absolutely nothing.
19 Q. What is required of you?
20 A. Well, no, sir. I'm just grateful because the government gave me
21 protection for my life. And if the government considers that I have
22 helped sufficiently, maybe they will make a recommendation to the
23 judge.
24 MR. FLANNIGAN: No further questions.
25 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, let's take our

1568
102
1 afternoon recess at this time. We will stand at recess for 15 minutes.
2 Stand at recess. Thank you.
5 counsel and defendant.
6 Could I see counsel at sidebar for a moment.
7 (At sidebar.)
8 THE COURT: Ms. Citizen has just realized when she was
9 a pretrial services officer that she did the pretrial investigation on
10 Arturo Beltran or one of those witnesses. So is there any objection if
11 she continues to interpret in this case?
13 MR. LACEY: Arturo Guzman. At one point they made a
14 two million dollar seizure.
15 MS. MATHESON: While we are here at sidebar, may I
16 have permission to have the microphone and go into the gallery to
17 identify two people in the courtroom while I am doing
18 cross-examination of the witness, please.
19 MR. LACEY: I would object to going into the gallery.
20 She can identify them like what we do from the witness stand, the
21 prosecutor from California and defense attorney for this witness. I
22 think it is inappropriate.
23 THE COURT: You can have him stand and identify them
24 if he can identify them from there. If he says he can't see them, he
25 can move towards the bar and identify them if he can't see them from
1569
103
1 there.
2 MS. MATHESON: You would like the witness to move
3 forward?
4 THE COURT: If he can't -- first he can stand and see if
5 he can identify them.
6 (In open court.)
7 CROSS-EXAMINATION
8 BY MS. MATHESON:
9 Q. Mr. Martinez-Martinez, I would like to ask you if you recognize
10 some other people in the courtroom.
11 THE COURT: You may stand, sir, if you wish.
12 MS. MATHESON: If I can have the gentleman in the
13 third row stand up for me, please.
14 BY MS. MATHESON:
15 Q. Do you recognize that man?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. You can sit for now. Who is he?
18 A. He's the attorney with whom I began cooperating when I was
19 extradited to the United States of America.
20 MS. MATHESON: May I move the easel, please.
21 THE COURT: Yes, you may.
22 BY MS. MATHESON:
23 Q. So do you know his name is Todd Robinson?
24 A. Yes, ma'am.
25 Q. You know he's the United States Attorney assigned to the case in
1570
104
1 San Diego for which you are a defendant?
2 A. Yes, ma'am.
3 Q. And he is the person that will be standing at the podium in front
4 of the judge at the time of your sentencing, correct?
5 A. I couldn't guarantee that, ma'am.
6 Q. You have already been sentenced actually, haven't you?
7 A. Yes, ma'am.
8 Q. Your sentence was for 219 months, correct?
9 A. No. My sentence was for 21 years, but His Honor decided to
10 take off three years of my sentence because I had been in jail in
11 Mexico for three years.
12 Q. So your sentence is 219 months but with credit for the three
13 years that you were incarcerated as you were fighting your extradition
14 in Mexico?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And do you know that only the United States Attorney can make
17 a recommendation that your sentence be reduced?
18 A. Yes, ma'am.
19 Q. And if you do not prove to be helpful, you very well may not
20 receive any reduction of sentence?
21 A. Yes, ma'am.
22 Q. So it's very important that you give information that will help
23 convict the man who is seated next to me, correct? Yes or no.
24 A. No.
25 MS. MATHESON: Now, I'd also like to ask the lady in the
1571
105
1 back row to please stand.
2 BY MS. MATHESON:
3 Q. Do you recognize that woman?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Who is she to you?
6 A. My attorney.
7 Q. And what is her name?
8 A. Inga Brober (phonetic).
9 Q. She is the attorney that helped you negotiate the plea
10 agreement that you have in this case. Is that not correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. I'm sure she has told you about the importance of being of use
13 to the government for a reduction of sentence, correct?
14 A. No.
15 Q. You just know that on your own, correct?
16 A. Am I allowed to answer?
17 Q. I'm asking you if you know that on your own?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Now, I know that you said that you've testified many times in
20 front of a grand jury before?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Those were all in connection with the same line of questioning
23 by the United States Attorney, correct?
24 A. It's about everything. This isn't everything.
25 Q. My question is: When you testified in front of the grand jury, it

1572
106
1 was over several period of days, correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You were questioned by the United States Attorney?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You gave answers?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And those answers were given under penalty of perjury, correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Because you stood up and you raised your right hand?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. You swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
12 truth?
13 A. (In English) Yes, ma'am.
14 Q. You were complete and accurate in your answers, were you not?
15 A. Of what I know and of what I saw, yes.
16 Q. And then you did the same thing today which was to tell the
17 truth?
18 A. Of what I know and of what I have seen, yes.
19 Q. Under penalty of perjury?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And so that is why -- part of the reason why -- that your lawyer
22 is here to protect you, correct?
23 A. My attorney has no reason to protect me from anything.
24 Q. Now, when you testified in front of the grand jury, it was over
25 several days?
1573
107
1 A. Yes, approximately a month. Not every day.
2 Q. When you were testifying, there was somebody or at least
3 something that was recording every single word that you said?
4 A. What do you mean something?
5 Q. A machine possibly?
6 A. Well, yes. There was one or two people like her with the little
7 device.
8 Q. So every word that you spoke on all of these occasions were put
9 into a transcript? Do you know that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Now, before your testimony have you had an opportunity to
12 review the grand jury transcript?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Now, you have explained to us on direct examination that while
15 you were incarcerated awaiting extradition three attempts were made
16 on your life?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You're confident --
19 A. Well, there was one more. There were four, but they weren't
20 able to do anything to me. So I can't prove the other one to you
21 because I didn't get any stab wounds. I am speaking of what I've
22 received to prove to you.
23 Q. So in fact there were four attempts on your life now?
24 A. Yes. Not now, always.
25 Q. And you're confident that the person that ordered your

1574
108
1 assassination was your compadre Chappo Guzman?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And you know that from common sense?
4 A. No. On the basis that I attempted to have communication with
5 him.
6 Q. Isn't it fair to say that you alive could do a lot of damage to
7 Chappo Guzman?
8 A. I imagine so.
9 Q. That's what I am talking about regarding logically common
10 sense. That is why you believe you were killed as well? Yes or no.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So now you were -- there was an attempt made on your life four
13 times. How many different prisons were you in?
14 A. I was in three different jails.
15 Q. You are referring to three different jails just in the country of
16 Mexico, correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Is it fair to say that in each of those three jails there was an
19 attempt made on your life?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So Chappo Guzman found you in each and every one of those
22 three prisons?
23 A. Because if you don't allow me to explain, then we can't -- with a
24 yes or a no, how could I explain to you I was in a federal prison?
25 THE COURT: Mr. Martinez, the attorneys ask you a

1575
109
1 question. Answer the question that the attorneys ask you. If the
2 attorney calls for a yes or no answer, you answer with a yes or no
3 answer.
4 BY MS. MATHESON:
5 Q. By the way, Mr. Martinez, you speak some English, don't you?
6 A. Some.
7 Q. You understand quite a bit of English, don't you?
8 A. Sometimes.
9 Q. I'm going to ask that you wait until the interpreter translates
10 everything before you respond to me, please. Is that a yes?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now, in the first prison in Mexico when you were detained, that
13 was the first time you were stabbed seven times?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And as a protective measure, you were moved to another prison,
16 correct?
17 A. No.
18 Q. So you were subsequently moved to a second prison, correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And in that second prison another attempt was made on your life
21 by someone trying to stab you?
22 A. No.
23 Q. So the second time was when they threw grenades at your cell?
24 A. No.
25 Q. So what happened the second time when you were in the second
1576
110
1 prison that attempt on your life?
2 A. Now may I speak?
3 Q. If you would just answer my question.
4 A. The second time that I was stabbed in jail, I was in the same jail
5 as when I got stabbed the first time.
6 Q. And what happened to you in the second prison?
7 A. They tried to kill me again by stabbing and then with grenades.
8 Q. And is that to say that you were in the second prison in Mexico
9 when two additional attempts were made on your life?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Then you were moved to a third prison, correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And in that third prison, no attempt was made on your life?
14 A. No.
15 Q. That's because you were in isolation. Is that right?
16 A. No.
17 Q. After these attempts were made on your life, you learned by
18 your own investigation that the attempts were made by Chappo
19 Guzman?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. So you didn't have reason to believe that it was a rival drug
22 organization that was trying to kill you, correct?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Now, you actually became involved with Chappo Guzman in 1987
25 approximately?
1577
111
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And you worked for that organization for 11 years, correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, you're an educated man, correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. You have a high school degree?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And you also got your commercial pilot's license, is it correct to
9 say, at Brownsville, Texas?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And the academics in Texas for the pilot license, they were in
12 English?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Because that was a requirement in order to get your commercial
15 pilot's license in the United States. You had to have English language
16 skills, correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And vocabulary for flying or for being a pilot is a fairly technical
19 vocabulary. Would you agree with me?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So other than the language of airplanes, you had to be able to
22 obviously read the texts in English, correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. You maintain that your English at this time is very limited, that
25 you require an interpreter?

1578
112
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Now, when you first got your pilot's license, you said you were
3 working for a private company in Celaya, correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. That is your hometown?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. But prior to getting involved in the drug smuggling industry, you
8 were smuggling electronic contraband, correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And no one was forcing you to do that, correct?
11 A. No.
12 Q. There were no threats made on your life to smuggle electronics,
13 were there?
14 A. No.
15 Q. But through your smuggling of electronic products, you learned
16 where all the clandestine runways were?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And that turned out to be a very valuable tool to the Guzman
19 drug organization. Am I correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So the smuggling of these electronic goods, this was just to
22 avoid paying importation taxes. Is that right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. But you weren't making enough money doing the electronic
25 smuggling, were you?

1579
113
1 A. No.
2 Q. You had the opportunity to make a lot more money?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And that was working as a drug smuggler for someone who
5 became one of America's most wanted drug smugglers. Is that
6 correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now, you would agree with me that you became a very trusted
9 member of the drug organization very early on, would you not?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. In fact it was within six months that you had returned from
12 Colombia after scouting cocaine, is that correct, or other drugs?
13 A. At about a year.
14 Q. So the first time though that you were in Colombia, you were
15 there for six months, correct?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. During that time you said you sat around for three months and
18 then you and another individual knocked on doors for the remaining
19 three months?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So you were instrumental in getting contacts for the exportation
22 of cocaine from Colombia?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, you agreed to do this job for $30,000, correct?
25 A. What job?
1580
114
1 Q. The first flight out of Colombia.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You in fact, however, never accepted that $30,000?
4 A. No.
5 Q. The reason why you didn't accept that is because you told
6 Chappo Guzman that you didn't earn it?
7 A. That's the way it was.
8 Q. Then you had his trust?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. And you told Chappo Guzman at that point let me earn the
11 money legitimately by doing a flight from Colombia?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. So you were given about $5,000 for your expenses to go to
14 Colombia for the second time, correct?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. But before you left for Colombia, the deception began?
17 A. What deception?
18 Q. You had to get a fake passport, correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And you used the name Felipe Arriaga?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. In fact you've used many other aliases, haven't you?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. Because it has been very important to you to maintain this level
25 of deception?
1581
115
1 A. At what level?
2 Q. The level of someone not finding out your true identity.
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. The level of someone trying to find out who you are really, not
5 just your name?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. False flight plans?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. False names?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. False identifications?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. You are paid to deceive, aren't you?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. You were paid in this case as well too as a cooperator, weren't
16 you?
17 A. No.
18 Q. You never received a payment of $2,500 from the United States
19 government?
20 A. A payment?
21 Q. Yes.
22 A. I have not received any payment from the government of the
23 United States.
24 Q. Now, when you arrived in Colombia, there was a Mexican that
25 was waiting for you, correct?

1582
116
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. And this was Alberto Araujo?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. And you were very clear with the grand jury in San Diego who
5 Alberto Araujo was, correct?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. You gave lots of details about Mr. Araujo, correct?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Now, you stated that your contact while you were in Colombia
10 was Alberto Araujo and Martin Moreno, correct?
11 A. Alberto Araujo in Colombia and Martin Moreno in Mexico.
12 Q. Those were your links to Chappo Guzman?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. And that's before Chappo Guzman really trusted you, wasn't it?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Now, originally when you went to Colombia, you were told that
17 you were going to be trafficking seven to ten tons of marijuana,
18 correct?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. So you went from the illegal importation of electronics to trying
21 to import seven to ten tons of marijuana?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. You claim that you met Joaquin Guzman, Chappo Guzman, for
24 the first time at his private home?
25 A. No.
1583
117
1 Q. At one point you met Joaquin Guzman in his private home,
2 correct?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. This was after you had returned from Colombia was it the first or
5 the second time?
6 A. It was the first time I returned from Colombia.
7 Q. So when was the first time that you met Chappo Guzman if it
8 was not in his home?
9 A. I met him at a house where I was told to be at. Alberto Araujo
10 made an appointment with me at a house. He came to pick me up at
11 the Hotel Plaza Del Sol. And he took me to meet the senor at that
12 time and that was Joaquin Guzman.
13 Q. You actually met at a private home but that was not Chappo
14 Guzman's home, correct?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. So I want to get the dates straight. The first time you were in
17 Colombia was June '86 to December of '86, correct?
18 THE INTERPRETER: Can you repeat the dates?
19 BY MS. MATHESON:
20 Q. June '86 to December of '86?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Are you sure about those dates?
23 A. Well, it could have been a month before or a month later.
24 Remember that I am talking about close to 20 years ago.
25 Q. And your second time you went to Colombia was when?

1584
118
1 A. During the first months of '87, February.
2 Q. So just a couple of months after your return from your first trip?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. And at that time you received a call, was it, at your parents'
5 house?
6 A. No, that was private.
7 Q. In your own home?
8 A. In my parents' home.
9 Q. Is that where you had been residing previously?
10 A. No. I had my own home. But I had to sell it and I went to live
11 with my parents.
12 Q. But you had given your phone number to Mr. Alberto Araujo,
13 correct?
14 A. Yes, when we were in Colombia.
15 Q. Mr. Araujo was able to find you at your parents' house in the
16 begining of 1987, correct?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. At that time you already had a cell phone or no?
19 A. Cell phones weren't used in Mexico at that time.
20 Q. Would you agree with me there wasn't caller ID either at that
21 time?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. Mr. Araujo was still able to find you at your parents' house,
24 correct?
25 A. Correct.
1585
119
1 Q. So when you first met Chappo Guzman, you called him El Senor?
2 A. No. They took me to meet El Senor.
3 Q. My question to you is: When you addressed him, you addressed
4 him when you learned his name was El Senor?
5 A. When I meet a person, I have the habit of always referring to
6 them in the formal "usted." To me referring to people or talking to
7 them in the "usted" form is a sign of respect whether they are older or
8 younger.
9 Q. And you always maintained that level of respect by calling
10 Chappo Guzman by the formal "usted," correct?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Even when you became his right-hand man, you continued to
13 call him "usted"?
14 A. I wasn't the right hand of Chappo Guzman. In that case he's an
15 octopus, Chappo Guzman. He must have about five right arms and
16 five left arms.
17 Q. You were a very trusted person to Mr. -- to Chappo Guzman,
18 correct?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. And even with that level of respect, you still addressed him in
21 the formal "usted," correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. On your second trip to Colombia, you said that you again met
24 with Alberto Araujo. Is that right?
25 A. Correct.
1586
120
1 Q. But you also met with another individual that you didn't tell us
2 about?
3 A. Where?
4 Q. In Medellin, Colombia.
5 A. Yes, I met another Colombian.
6 Q. In fact you met with Carlos Uribe, didn't you? Yes or no.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. He's the one who had the specific arrangements for the cocaine
9 purchase, correct?
10 A. No.
11 Q. It was Mr. Araujo?
12 A. No.
13 Q. You obtained the cocaine shipment from Carlos Uribe, did you
14 not?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. The specific arrangements for the cocaine purchase were made
17 by Mr. Araujo though?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. And you were present at some of those arrangements, were you
20 not?
21 A. No, no, not all of them.
22 Q. Some of them?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And at that time you knew the financial arrangement between
25 Mr. Guzman, Chappo Guzman, and the Colombians, correct?

1587
121
1 A. I was learning about it, starting to learn.
2 Q. You learned from Mr. Araujo that Chappo Guzman would take 45
3 percent of the shipment and the other remaining percentage was for
4 the Colombians through Carlos Uribe?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. So you had a close call when you were trying to land in Cancun
7 with the thousand-plus kilos of cocaine, did you not?
8 A. 1,420 kilos of cocaine.
9 Q. My question is: You had a close call when you were landing in
10 Cancun with those drugs, did you not?
11 A. No, not in Cancun.
12 Q. In Cumpas. I'm sorry.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, the Cancun airport believed that you were flying a different
15 flight plan than you actually were, correct?
16 THE INTERPRETER: Could you repeat the question?
17 BY MS. MATHESON:
18 Q. The Cancun airport authorities believed you were flying a
19 different flight plan than the one you actually took from Colombia?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. And on direct examination -- please remind us where you said
22 that you were flying from.
23 A. We took off from Medellin to Caqueta. Caqueta is a state that's
24 right next to Ecuador. And from there we flew directly to Cancun from
25 going along the side of the Islas del Cisne.

1588
122
1 Q. But you told the Cancun flight controllers that you were coming
2 from Yucatan, Mexico, right?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. But you told the grand jury that you were actually coming from a
5 completely different part of Mexico?
6 A. From Palenque, Chiapas.
7 Q. Are those close together?
8 A. Same thing. Right next to each other.
9 Q. So when you flew into -- let me ask you this. You said on direct
10 examination that you did two flights yourself for the Guzman
11 organization, correct?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. You remember those flights very distinctly, do you not?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. But you coordinated or knew of approximately 160 flights,
16 correct?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. You got a $25,000 bonus for every flight that you did?
19 A. No.
20 Q. That additional $25,000 was on top of your regular salary?
21 A. I did not receive $25,000 in addition to my salary.
22 Q. We will get back to that in a little bit. Now, you actually told
the
23 grand jury that you did a total of three flights, correct?
24 A. No, two flights.
25 Q. So is it your belief that the -- that the third flight was the first
1589
123
1 attempt that was unsuccessful in Colombia?
2 A. That couldn't be a flight because I didn't do it.
3 Q. I'm referring to what has been marked as Defense Exhibit
4 Number 206 for identification which is the grand jury transcript. On
5 page 28 you were asked at line 18, "What was your role in the
6 organization? Were you flying aboard every one of those planes?"
7 And your response was, "No, no. I made three flights."
8 MR. FLANNIGAN: Objection. Counsel should read the
9 entire answer.
10 MS. MATHESON: I'm more than happy to do that.
11 "No, no. I made only three flights. After that one I
12 went on two."
13 MR. FLANNIGAN: She should read the entire answer all
14 the way to the end of the answer.
15 MS. MATHESON: If I may permit the interpreter to
16 translate, Your Honor.
17 THE COURT: Yes.
18 MS. MATHESON: "Joaquin Guzman ended up trusting
19 me a lot and he started permitting me coordinating the operations to
20 Colombia."
21 THE WITNESS: Correct.
22 MS. MATHESON: Do you have any need for any further?
23 "I would talk on the phone. Well, Joaquin's name
24 started to become known in Mexico. So I would call different
25 Colombians. I would ask them how many planes they could send on a
1590
124
1 particular night. They would say two, three. I would call another and
2 they would say one. The other one would say three to four or the
3 other one would say he could not send anything on that day -- excuse
4 me -- on that one day."
5 BY MS. MATHESON:
6 Q. So I ask you again, your response was that you made only three
7 flights for the organization?
8 A. No.
9 Q. You in fact made two?
10 A. No.
11 Q. You did not testify on direct examination that you made two
12 flights for the organization?
13 A. But the prosecutor was asking me about my person, not how
14 many I coordinated.
15 Q. I understand that. You coordinated a good 160 flights, correct?
16 A. More or less.
17 Q. But you yourself testified that you only made three flights for the
18 organization?
19 A. I made two flights for the organization. Me flying in the planes.
20 Q. So you can't account for the third flight that you reference in the
21 grand jury transcript, can you? Yes or no.
22 A. No.
23 Q. Now, you were able to tell the grand jury the persons that were
24 involved in that cocaine shipment out of Colombia that you flew,
25 correct?
1591
125
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. You referenced a person named H?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And that's Hector Beltran, correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Is that one of -- would you agree with me that is one of Chappo
7 Guzman's other right-hand men?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. As well as his brother?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. In fact you mentioned the two brothers in connection with the
12 tunnel in Agua Prieta, did you not?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. In fact you mentioned the two brothers as well as Camarena as
15 the three people that were in charge of running the tunnel in Agua
16 Prieta?
17 A. Correct, and some others.
18 Q. You didn't mention those in your grand jury transcript, did you?
19 THE INTERPRETER: Did or didn't?
20 MS. MATHESON: Did not.
21 THE WITNESS: Well, because they didn't ask me.
22 BY MS. MATHESON:
23 Q. You told them there were three people in charge of running the
24 Agua Prieta tunnel, did you not?
25 A. Correct.
1592
126
1 Q. And none of those three people are in court today, are they?
2 A. Of what people?
3 Q. The brothers Beltran and the third person involved in the tunnel?
4 A. Yes, they are in the pictures I pointed out awhile ago.
5 Q. Just in photographs?
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. So it was the brothers Beltran as well as Mr. Francisco Camarena,
8 correct?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. You were able to specifically name those three to the grand jury
11 while you were under oath?
12 A. Correct. I didn't mention any more because they didn't ask me.
13 Q. We will get to that.
14 A. (In English) Okay.
15 Q. Now, we talked a little bit -- or I should say the prosecutor asked
16 you about Guzman's -- Chappo Guzman's drug use.
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. You said that Guzman used for a while and then actually gave it
19 up?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. And your testimony on direct examination was that the cocaine
22 went across the border directly to Los Angeles, correct?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. But what you failed to mention is that some of that cocaine
25 ended up your nose, didn't it?

1593
127
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. You snorted four grams a day for 15 years?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. But you didn't say that because you weren't asked by the
5 prosecutor?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. Let's talk a little bit about the exposure that you had in this
8 case.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Can counsel clarify the term
10 "exposure"?
11 BY MS. MATHESON:
12 Q. Let's talk about the legal consequences of your involvement in
13 this case.
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. You mentioned somebody else who you had worked with who
16 received 20 years of incarceration?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. That is Guillermo Salles or Salas?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. And in fact you knew when you entered your plea in this case
21 that you were looking at even a possible life in prison?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. But you testified on direct examination from the very first day of
24 your extradition you were going to cooperate with American
25 authorities?
1594
128
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. You knew that served you well?
3 A. Well, I was going to try for it to serve me well.
4 Q. Absolutely. You have been able to give authorities a lot of
5 information about drugs, correct?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. And in fact you've given information to the authorities about
8 laundering of money, correct?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Even on direct examination today you said that you were a
11 witness to or took place in the movement of $30 million on one
12 occasion?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. But in fact you didn't tell the grand jury in San Diego anything
15 about $30 million, did you, Mr. Martinez?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. You only told the grand jury about five million dollars that was
18 turned over from Chappo Guzman to Manuel Trillo. Is that correct?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. $30 million sounds a lot more important, doesn't it?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Now, other than the false passports that you have had, isn't it
23 true that all members of the Guzman organization had military and
24 federal police identifications as well?
25 A. Correct.
1595
129
1 Q. You yourself were a possessor of those documents?
2 A. Never. Just passports.
3 Q. Several passports, correct?
4 A. Several.
5 Q. In fact you even made an attempt or actually received an
6 American visa under a false name?
7 A. I received an American visa, one of the new ones, with a false
8 passport.
9 Q. You used a different name than your true name?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And a different name than Felipe Arriaga?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. In fact you have used so many names you probably couldn't tell
14 us all the names you have used, can you?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Not only did you have the documentation to deceive, you also
17 had the communication skills to deceive, correct?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. In fact you said when you talked to the Colombians that your
20 father is inviting -- my father invites you to a party and how many
21 young ladies will you be bringing?
22 A. Correct. We are talking code, right.
23 Q. That is your code, correct?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. You had other codes that you used as well, not just about ladies
1596
130
1 being invited to parties?
2 A. Many codes even numbers.
3 Q. You even had a system of whistling when words didn't do you
4 justice?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Your deception did not stop until -- I withdraw that question.
7 I'm sorry, Your Honor.
8 Now, you said that Chappo Guzman eventually ended up
9 buying some planes with your assistance.
10 A. Correct. Many.
11 Q. Money was no object to Chappo Guzman?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Nor was it for you?
14 A. Not at that time.
15 Q. Not many jobs in Mexico that pay a million dollars a year, are
16 there?
17 A. Yes, drug trafficking.
18 Q. You are good at that, aren't you?
19 A. Well, you would have to ask Chappo.
20 Q. With your help over 160 flights -- or approximately 160 flights
21 were coordinated, correct?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. And the quantity of cocaine on each and every one of those
24 flights ranged from 800 kilos on up?
25 A. Yes, but there was also a limit.

1597
131
1 Q. Sure. You were in a position where you would have done
2 anything for Chappo Guzman. Is that correct?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. Mr. Martinez, you were present when assassinations were
5 ordered by Mr. Guzman, by Chappo Guzman?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. Even though on direct examination you said you were not?
8 A. I said that I wasn't present where people were killed, but I was
9 present when he gave the order for people to be killed.
10 Q. In fact you said on direct examination that you were not aware
11 of Guzman ordering the death of anybody?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. And now you admit that you were present when Chappo Guzman
14 ordered the death of people, the assassination of people?
15 A. I wasn't present when Chappo Guzman killed people.
16 Q. That wasn't my question, Mr. Martinez. On direct examination
17 you stated to Mr. Flannigan you were not aware of Chappo Guzman
18 ordering the death of anybody else?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. But now that I'm asking, you are admitting that you were
21 present when Chappo Guzman ordered the assassination of other
22 people?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. So it just depends on who is asking you the question, correct?
25 A. Correct.
1598
132
1 Q. But you stated that you yourself never ordered the death of
2 anyone?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. However, you were present with Chappo Guzman when you
5 asked for permission to start a war with your rival organization?
6 A. What's that?
7 Q. That you were present when Chappo Guzman and you went to
8 get permission to start a war on the rival drug organization?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. So you lied about not being present when the death was
11 ordered?
12 MR. FLANNIGAN: This question is argumentative.
14 BY MS. MATHESON:
15 Q. Again, different answer because a different person asked it?
16 A. I don't know what war you are referring to, ma'am. I told you
17 that I didn't participate in anybody's death. I didn't order anybody's
18 death.
19 Q. Let me ask you this. When Chappo Guzman and his 40 hit men
20 went to Puerto Vallarta with the intention of murdering members of
21 the rival organization, Chappo Guzman told you to send him a plane
22 for that purpose?
23 A. Chappo Guzman told me to send him a plane to pick him up.
24 Q. That's right. You knew where he was destined and for what
25 purpose? I am referring to the discotheque at Christine, Christine

1599
133
1 Discotheque.
2 A. But Chappo Guzman called me to send him the plane. He didn't
3 tell me he was going to Christine in a plane.
4 Q. You know he was going to Puerto Vallarta for that particular
5 purpose?
6 A. How would I know?
7 Q. You knew everything that Chappo Guzman was doing. You
8 testified on direct as to that. So are you saying now you don't know
9 about his intention to kill rival gang members in Puerto Vallarta?
10 Could you please answer the question yes or no.
11 A. Could you repeat it?
12 Q. So now you are saying that you didn't know that Chappo
13 Guzman was going to Puerto Vallarta with his 40 hit men for that
14 purpose?
15 A. I didn't know.
16 Q. You knew everything but the assassination of these people,
17 correct?
18 THE INTERPRETER: Counsel, repeat the question.
19 BY MS. MATHESON:
20 Q. You knew everything that Chappo Guzman was doing except for
21 the assassination of the people at the discotheque?
22 A. Correct.
23 THE COURT: Counsel, let's stop here. It's 5:00.
24 Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we will take our
25 afternoon recess at this time. We will reconvene tomorrow at 9:30.

1600
134
1 Remember the admonition of the court not to discuss
2 the case with anyone nor allow anybody to discuss the case with you.
3 Do not read or watch anything touching upon this case. Do not do any
4 investigation on your own regarding this case.
5 Have a good evening. We will see you tomorrow
6 morning at 9:30.
7 (The jury was excused at 4:57 p.m.)
8 THE COURT: Record will reflect the jury has withdrawn,
9 counsel and the defendant are present.
10 Mr. Flannigan, Mr. Lacey, any further record?
11 MR. LACEY: No, Your Honor.
13 MS. MATHESON: No, Your Honor. Thank you.
14 THE COURT: Thank you. We will see you tomorrow
15 morning at 9:30.
16 (The proceedings concluded at 4:59 p.m.)
17 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - -
18 (Call to order of court, 9:40 a.m., March 22, 2006.)
20 counsel and the defendant. Mr. Martinez is on the stand.
21 You may proceed, Ms. Matheson.
22 CROSS-EXAMINATION
23 BY MS. MATHESON:
24 Q. Mr. Martinez, I want to go over your testimony from yesterday to
25 make sure I have some dates correct.

1601
135
1 I understand that you received your commercial pilot's
2 license around 1980 in the United States, correct?
3 A. Yes, counselor.
4 Q. Thereafter you started with a private company and then moved
5 on to smuggling electronics?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. And through your work with the Chappo Guzman organization,
8 you went to Colombia for six months the last half of 1986, correct?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. And when you got back from that trip, you wouldn't take money
11 from Chappo Guzman because you feel you had not earned it?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. And it was with that, that you won over Chappo Guzman's trust?
14 A. I don't know if it was with that. Perhaps.
15 Q. But you did start taking money when you were successful with
16 some -- with a flight from Colombia to Mexico?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. That first flight was January or February of 1987?
19 A. February of '87.
20 Q. Now, you testified yesterday that you did personally two flights
21 for Chappo Guzman?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. And yesterday you couldn't recall what the third flight was that
24 you had testified to at the grand jury proceedings?
25 A. May I answer?
1602
136
1 Q. Could you or could you not remember about the third flight?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You remember about the third flight today. While you were
4 doing these flights, you coordinated 160 flights for the Guzman
5 organization, correct?
6 A. Can I explain something or not?
7 Q. If you can just answer my questions, please.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. So I am correct in saying that you coordinated about 160 flights
10 for the Guzman organization?
11 A. No.
12 Q. So your testimony is different today than it was yesterday?
13 A. No.
14 Q. So what is your testimony today? How many flights do you
15 claim that you organized for the Guzman organization?
16 A. 160 flights approximately were made, but I didn't coordinate all
17 of them.
18 Q. These flights took place with the Guzman organization over a
19 one-and-a-half to two-year period. Am I correct in that?
20 A. No, a little more.
21 Q. In fact you testified before the grand jury, and I'm referring to
22 page 30, where you were asked at line 21, "What time period were the
23 approximately 160 flights? What time period did these flights take
24 place during?" Your answer was, "Somewhere between a year and a
25 half and two years." Do you recall saying that?

1603
137
1 A. Yes, I remember.
2 Q. So if we were to take two years from the very first flight that
3 you did February of 1987, two full years would be February of 1989?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. Now, yesterday you stated that you knew of no lost loads of
6 drugs in Mexico. Is that correct?
7 A. Yes. I do have knowledge about one.
8 Q. So today you have knowledge about one but yesterday you
9 didn't remember about that one?
10 A. I have knowledge about one.
11 Q. In fact not only did you explain to the grand jury that there was
12 a huge load that was lost in Tecate?
13 A. Yes, seven tons and 400 kilos.
14 Q. But you just didn't remember that yesterday, did you?
15 A. And if you allow me, I also remember another one.
16 Q. How about the eight planes that were lost and the merchandise
17 on those planes because the planes that landed close to the ocean
18 actually went into the ocean? Do you remember that?
19 A. Correct, in Culiacan.
20 Q. So in fact today you're testifying there were ten loads that were
21 lost, correct?
22 MR. FLANNIGAN: I object to the question. The
23 testimony on direct was loads that were seized by the Mexican
24 government, not loads that were lost.
25 THE COURT: Well, the question now is loads that were

1604
138
1 lost apparently. So it is a different area we are talking about. You
2 may proceed.
3 BY MS. MATHESON:
4 Q. So it is fair to say that ten loads were lost in Mexico, correct?
5 A. If you refer to the loads of fallen planes, then there are more.
6 Q. In the beginning of 1988, you testified that you moved to Mexico
7 City to run Chappo Guzman's office, correct?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. And when you first moved to Mexico City, you said that the zoo
10 that Mr. Corona was building was still not completed, correct?
11 A. They were finishing it.
12 Q. But it's when you moved to Mexico City to run Chappo Guzman's
13 office that Chappo Guzman told you about this amazing tunnel that
14 Mr. Corona built, correct?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. In fact you went to Agua Prieta and met with the mayor in -- end
17 of 1987, beginning of 1988?
18 A. At that time he was not the mayor. He became the mayor later.
19 Q. This is Bernardino Meza?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And was I correct in saying that it was the end of 1987 and the
22 beginning of 1988 when you were handed over six million dollars from
23 Bernardino Meza at that time?
24 A. No, it was before.
25 Q. That money was a result of the massive amounts of narcotics

1605
139
1 that were leaving the country and the cash that was coming back as a
2 result of the tunnel?
3 A. No.
4 Q. So you were handed over six million dollars. Are you able to tell
5 us this morning whether that six million dollars was drug related?
6 A. If you allow me to explain this to you, of course.
7 Q. If you would just please tell me whether the six million dollars
8 was drug related or not.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Now, yesterday you told us that you were on about a
11 million-dollar-a-year salary by Chappo Guzman, correct?
12 A. Correct, after 1989.
13 Q. In fact --
14 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter correction. As of 1989.
15 BY MS. MATHESON:
16 Q. And you received that salary through your duration of your
17 employment with the cartel, correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, yesterday you denied receiving $25,000 bonuses for every
20 successful flight. Do you remember that?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. But in fact on March 21, 2002, you were interviewed by the
23 United States Attorney from San Diego who stood up yesterday. Is
24 that right?
25 A. Correct.
1606
140
1 Q. He was with his -- the group supervisor Daniel Scott and Special
2 Agent Jeffrey Lindenburg (phonetic)?
3 A. I'm not familiar with those names.
4 Q. On that date you bragged that you earned a yearly salary of a
5 million dollars and $25,000 per flight of cocaine that successfully
6 arrived at its destination?
7 A. There's a mistake there.
8 Q. So do you recall telling the agent and the United States Attorney
9 that information?
10 A. Correct. That is correct, yes.
11 Q. Now, yesterday we talked about some of the things that you did
12 through the organization that were deceptive practices?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. You said you used many false names?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You had various false Mexican passports?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. You even had false voter registration cards that matched the
19 names?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. And also you explained that you even obtained a false American
22 visa or false American visas in order to enter the United States?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. But the deception didn't just stop with the documentation, did it?
25 A. I don't know what you are referring to.

1607
141
1 Q. Well, remember when you would present yourself to customs
2 when you would come to the United States or a foreign country?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. The inspection officer --
5 A. The United States I didn't come.
6 Q. You never went to Los Angeles, Las Vegas or Tucson, Arizona
7 with Chappo Guzman?
8 A. With my true name I did. I didn't have problems in those days.
9 Q. So when you were using the false documents in other countries,
10 you were obviously questioned by the equivalent of customs there,
11 correct?
12 A. I don't understand the question.
13 Q. The customs people asked what was the purpose of your trip to
14 their country, correct?
15 A. Sometimes they asked. Sometimes they don't.
16 Q. When you answered them, you surely told them you were there
17 to smuggle large quantities of cocaine, right?
18 A. No.
19 Q. You actually were able to convince them that you were in their
20 country for a legitimate lawful purpose?
21 A. I wasn't even asked what I was going for in those countries. I
22 think you are mistaken. I think you think that all countries are like
23 the United States. If you go to Mexico, they don't even ask you what
24 you are going for. If you go to Colombia, they don't even ask you
25 what your name is. If you go to Central America, sometimes they

1608
142
1 don't even check your passport.
2 Q. So you didn't even need fake documents then because nobody
3 asked you anything, right?
4 A. Yes, but what if they had asked me?
5 Q. You were prepared to give a story?
6 A. Of course. I had ID with other names as if I were a manager.
7 Q. So you told them -- you were prepared. You didn't tell them.
8 You were prepared to tell them that you were there for a lawful
9 legitimate purpose?
10 A. I was prepared. If they had asked me what I was going there
11 for, I was ready to answer what I was going for.
12 Q. You had practiced in making up these stories. You also used
13 codes on telephones?
14 A. Well, it's not my practice. It's just a practice that you use when
15 you are conducting illegal activities.
16 Q. I don't use it. You used it?
17 MR. FLANNIGAN: I object to counsel testifying.
19 BY MS. MATHESON:
20 Q. And you had a pattern of whistling that you used to
21 communicate?
22 A. Pattern of whistles, pattern of codes, pattern of numbers and a
23 bunch of things that are used to communicate in code.
24 Q. You also knew that your organization was getting drugs across
25 the border through hidden compartments in vehicles at the port of

1609
143
1 entry, correct?
2 A. That was at the beginning.
3 Q. You also knew that Chappo Guzman had some United States
4 agents on his payroll as well?
5 A. You are talking about the United States of America?
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. I have never said anything like that.
8 Q. That was my question to you. You had knowledge that Guzman
9 had people on his payroll from the United States?
10 A. Never.
11 Q. Now, you explained yesterday that some of the flights you
12 coordinated weren't flights that actually had drugs on them. They
13 were fake planes?
14 A. No. I gave an example that you would use a plane as bait as
15 long as you had other planes with drugs.
16 Q. That is what you did?
17 A. That was done once.
18 Q. Then when the plane trafficking was intercepted, you
19 coordinated the importation or the exportation of drugs on ships,
20 right?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. And also you even set up an oil company for the Guzman cartel
23 to use tanker cars for drug smuggling?
24 A. It was one oil company.
25 Q. You also set up another business, a front business, in Mexico

1610
144
1 City to ship cocaine by train, correct?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. That was a company that you set up called Agroquimica Mares?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. Now, eventually you would agree with me that you became a
6 very trusted member of this organization, correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And in fact the level of trust was so great that you explained
9 yesterday that Chappo Guzman had you safeguard $30 million?
10 A. Yes. I also wanted to tell you about this $30 million. They did
11 give them to me, but not all the same time. It would be 4 million, 5
12 million. Planes would come in with the money and they would give it
13 to me.
14 Q. However, yesterday you acknowledged that you only told the
15 grand jury that you witnessed the turning over of $5 million, not $30
16 million?
17 A. Well, I couldn't say this to the grand jury because they knew
18 that I was receiving these deliveries for every 15 days or a month for
19 $4 or $5 million.
20 Q. You couldn't tell the grand jury because why?
21 A. Maybe they didn't ask me. Just like you, a yes, a no, I can't.
22 Q. You said that you were aware of all of Guzman's activities? Yes
23 or no.
24 A. (In English) Yes.
25 Q. Except you said yesterday, however, that you didn't know about
1611
145
1 the killings that were supposed to take place in Puerto Vallarta?
2 A. I was never informed that they were going to kill somebody in
3 Puerto Vallarta.
4 Q. You did know of all of Guzman's murders, however, did you not?
5 A. Never.
6 Q. In fact on page 76 of your grand jury transcript, you were
7 asked --
8 MR. FLANNIGAN: Your Honor, if I could get a cite.
9 THE COURT: Yes.
10 MS. MATHESON: I will back up then to page 75 line
11 21.
12 BY MS. MATHESON:
13 Q. The question was, "What I would like to do is turn your attention
14 to the killings which preceded the killing of the cardinal and ask you,
15 first, are you aware of the events which took place, that is the fight
16 between the Arellano Felix organization and the Chappo Guzman
17 organization, based upon your role and contact with members within
18 the Chappo Guzman organization?"
19 THE INTERPRETER: I lost the rest.
20 MS. MATHESON: Where did you leave off?
21 THE INTERPRETER: After the cardinal.
22 BY MS. MATHESON:
23 Q. "And ask you, first, are you aware of the events which took
24 place, that is the fight between the Arellano Felix organization and the
25 Chappo Guzman organization, based upon your role and contact with
1612
146
1 members within the Chappo Guzman organization?"
2 And your answer, Mr. Martinez, at line 4 page 76 was,
3 "Yes, sir. I do have knowledge of all the murders, all the murders that
4 were -- that took place due to the fact that I was very close to
5 Mr. Joaquin Guzman-Loera."
6 Now, do you remember saying that?
7 MR. FLANNIGAN: I object to this form of impeachment.
8 She is jumping from were you aware of it beforehand and then she
9 gets the grand jury testimony that said did you become aware of it.
10 It's improper impeachment and unfair impeachment.
11 THE COURT: Well, the questions clearly are different.
12 You have asked two different questions. If you want to
13 ask him was he aware at some point that happened, as has been
14 asked in the grand jury, you may do that.
15 The objection is sustained that the other question
16 starting with "Were you aware beforehand" and now "Were you aware
17 at some point," the question is improper.
18 MS. MATHESON: I will break it up into two.
19 BY MS. MATHESON:
20 Q. First of all, do you remember giving that answer to the grand
21 jury?
22 A. Of what answer? I don't understand the question.
23 Q. That you had knowledge of all of Chappo Guzman's murders?
24 A. Depends on the occasion.
25 Q. Well, my question is: In your answer you said you had

1613
147
1 knowledge of all of them?
2 A. It would be impossible for me to know of all of Chappo Guzman's
3 murders. I would know of Chappo Guzman's murders that he or the
4 gunmen spoke to me about. I was never with Chappo Guzman killing
5 people or ordering the death of people. My job in the organization was
6 to speak with the Colombian cartels.
7 MS. MATHESON: Excuse me. I object to this answer as
8 nonresponsive to my question, Your Honor.
9 THE COURT: The part of the answer where Mr. Martinez
10 says, "My job in the organization was," that will be stricken. The rest
11 was responsive to your question.
12 BY MS. MATHESON:
13 Q. Now, you knew about the murder of Armando Lopez and Felipe
14 Retramosa, right?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. You also knew about the murder of the wife and children of El
17 Guero Palma?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. You further knew about Marcos Toledo's murder and Alvarez
20 Farber's murder?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. And Guzman actually discussed the killing of other people?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. In fact Chappo Guzman -- let me ask you if you recall this
25 testimony. I am going to refer to the meeting that you and Chappo

1614
148
1 Guzman had with the rival drug organization. Do you recall saying to
2 the grand jury after the meeting -- this was after the meeting, "When
3 we got into the car" -- this is at page 83 line 15 -- "When we got into
4 the car and we were on our way back to the office, he told me that --
5 he said, and I quote, 'Look, fatty, I don't believe anything of what they
6 have said. They killed Armando and they killed Felipe and I have to
7 be very careful because they are going to turn on me and they are
8 going to try to kill me.'" And then you stated that "Guzman said what
9 we need to do is kill them as soon as possible."
10 A. Correct.
11 MR. FLANNIGAN: I would object to this form of
12 impeachment. She is not impeaching anything different than what he
13 said.
14 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer will stand.
15 BY MS. MATHESON:
16 Q. And the request of Guzman didn't stop there regarding the killing
17 of these people, did it?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. You and Guzman personally went to a prison?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. To get permission to start a war?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. And the person who gave you and Chappo Guzman this
24 permission was someone who is nicknamed El Azul?
25 A. Correct.
1615
149
1 Q. Juan Esparragoza-Moreno?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. The boss of Chappo Guzman?
4 A. (In English) The boss of the bosses.
5 Q. You got that permission?
6 A. Not to me, to Chappo Guzman.
7 Q. Now, you also told the grand jury that in late 1990 there was the
8 murder of nine individuals in Mexico City whose bodies were later
9 abandoned in Acapulco?
10 MR. FLANNIGAN: Can she give a citation where she is
11 reading from?
12 MS. MATHESON: Page 93.
13 THE WITNESS: Correct.
14 BY MS. MATHESON:
15 Q. You also testified yesterday that two other people under Guzman
16 turned up dead, Arturo Guzman and Francisco Salazar?
17 A. Arturo Guzman and Francisco Salazar were brother and
18 brother-in-law of El Chappo.
19 Q. Both of them turned up dead?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Mr. Martinez, yesterday was the very first time you ever
22 mentioned the name Francisco Salazar. Isn't that correct?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. Now, you and Chappo Guzman traveled all over the world
25 together, correct?
1616
150
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. All over Mexico?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. Japan?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Hong Kong?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Thailand?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. India?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Argentina?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Chile and Brazil?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Venezuela?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. Cuba?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. And in the United States?
21 A. In the beginning.
22 Q. And you said that when you were traveling -- or when
23 Mr. Guzman was traveling, he was always surrounded by heavily
24 armed people?
25 A. In Mexico.
1617
151
1 Q. When you traveled with Guzman, you guys ate at the finest
2 restaurants?
3 A. We tried to find the best.
4 Q. You used drugs together?
5 A. No. Chappo withdrew from drugs. And I didn't carry drugs when
6 I went internationally.
7 Q. You guys stayed at nice hotels?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And even Chappo Guzman either lent you or somehow gave you
10 one of his beautiful homes in which you stayed prior to your arrest?
11 A. He didn't give me. He lent it because he was borrowing a house
12 from me in Mexico City.
13 Q. You also acquired information while you were detained during
14 your extradition proceedings?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. You knew that Chappo Guzman after he had been arrested and
17 detained bought his way out of prison?
18 A. I couldn't know that because Chappo Guzman ordered to have
19 me killed after I came into jail. Chappo Guzman put an end to our
20 compadreship in the affection he sent for me when I went to jail.
21 Q. But you did learn how he bought his way out of prison from
22 another fellow prisoner?
23 A. How was I supposed to find out if I was in another jail?
24 Q. Let me quote from your grand jury transcript at page 206. At
25 line 13 you were asked, "Are you aware of the approximate amount of
1618
152
1 money used to secure Joaquin Guzman-Loera's escape from prison?
2 How much money was paid to the prison officials if you know?" And
3 your response, Mr. Martinez, was, "Well, I know that he paid more than
4 $3 million."
5 A. Of course I gave that answer because when I was in jail I was
6 told that El Chappo had escaped from prison in exchange for $3
7 million, but I didn't witness that.
8 Q. You heard about it?
9 A. Oh, yeah.
10 Q. You also learned about other people in prison that were sought
11 after by American authorities, correct?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. In fact you met Rafael Caro-Quintero? You met him in prison?
14 A. Only in the jail like this. We were in jail together.
15 Q. You knew he was wanted for the murder of the DEA agent, didn't
16 you?
17 A. That's always been spoken about in Mexico.
18 Q. Now, let's talk a little bit about who was in charge of the offices.
19 Yesterday you said that yourself, Manuel Trillo Hernandez and
20 Humberto Loya-Castro were in charge of the Mexican office?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. And you also told the grand jury that the Agua Prieta tunnel was
23 run by the Beltran brothers and Francisco Camarena?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. But you didn't mention Felipe Corona as being in charge of the

1619
153
1 tunnel?
2 A. Felipe Corona wasn't in charge of the tunnel. Felipe Corona
3 designed that.
4 Q. You know that based only upon what Chappo Guzman told you?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. But you also know from Chappo Guzman that the Agua Prieta
7 tunnel was in operation for two years prior to being discovered?
8 A. I don't know exactly how much time -- I don't know exactly
9 when it started. If it is a year and a half or two years.
10 Q. Do you recall telling the grand jury that it had been in operation
11 close to two years?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Now, let's talk about Mr. Corona. Tell me if this is a fair
14 statement. The more you can convince the jury of your knowledge of
15 Mr. Corona the more benefit you are to the United States Attorney's
16 office. Yes or no?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And one of the first questions you were asked at page 4 in the
19 grand jury is that "In exchange for that cooperation, is it fair to say
20 you hope to receive a reduction in your sentence at some point in
21 time?"
22 A. The only thing that was offered to me was a recommendation
23 which would be made to the judge.
24 Q. In exchange for your cooperation?
25 A. But not in exchange for my cooperation against Mr. Corona. But

1620
154
1 in regard to cooperation in regard to everything I know with regard to
2 all the cases.
3 Q. In exchange for your cooperation here, it is your hope to receive
4 a reduction in your sentence?
5 A. Doesn't depend on me. It depends on the government and first
6 and foremost the judge. It's of no use to me --
7 MS. MATHESON: Your Honor, may I ask that the
8 remainder of his answer be stricken for nonresponsive.
9 THE COURT: Thank you, sir. You have answered the
10 question. There is nothing to strike, I don't believe.
11 You may proceed with your next question.
12 BY MS. MATHESON:
13 Q. Mr. Martinez, yesterday you said that Felipe Corona was in
14 charge of buying some property where he built structures for Chappo
15 Guzman?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. And that also included land for the tunnel in Agua Prieta?
18 A. I don't know that for a fact about the land in Agua Prieta.
19 Q. In fact it was another person that you implicated in the grand
20 jury who was -- who purchased land for the tunnels?
21 MR. FLANNIGAN: If counsel can give a citation.
22 MS. MATHESON: Your Honor, I will give that. I am
23 waiting for the interpretation.
24 BY MS. MATHESON:
25 Q. At page 185 you said, "A man named Antonio

1621
155
1 Reynoso-Gonzalez."
2 A. Counselor, you are talking about another tunnel.
3 Q. The next page, on 186, you said that "Antonio
4 Reynoso-Gonzalez, he was one of the ones that was in charge of
5 purchasing the land for the tunnels."
6 MR. FLANNIGAN: If counsel could give the citation and
7 line numbers as well.
8 MS. MATHESON: Line 2.
9 THE WITNESS: You are talking about another tunnel.
10 BY MS. MATHESON:
11 Q. I am just clarifying your testimony at the grand jury.
12 A. Correct, but if you are talking about Antonio Reynoso, you are
13 talking about the Tijuana tunnel.
14 Q. And in your grand jury testimony, you said that it was that
15 individual, that was one person in charge of purchasing the land for
16 the tunnels.
17 A. He bought the land for the tunnel in Tijuana, but not for the one
18 in Agua Prieta. I never said for the one in Agua Prieta.
19 Q. So this is incorrect to say that he purchased the land for
20 tunnels?
21 A. They put an extra S on there.
22 Q. Now, when you were explaining the structures that you claim
23 were built by Mr. Corona, you referenced a farm in Celaya?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. Two homes in Celaya as well?

1622
156
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. A warehouse in Chinaco?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. A supermarket?
5 A. That's in Guadalajara.
6 Q. And a farm with a zoo in Guadalajara?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. And, coincidentally, on direct examination you stated that each
9 of those structures had hydraulic secret compartment rooms?
10 A. All the properties that I have mentioned, the supermarket in
11 Guadalajara, the farms in Celaya -- the farm in Celaya, the two houses
12 in Chinaco and the two houses in Celaya, they all were constructed
13 with a system to safeguard either drugs or money through a hydraulic
14 system.
15 Q. You knew that based upon what Chappo Guzman told you?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. And what you claim that you saw yourself as well?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. Including one that you found by accident because you were
20 living at a house and your mattress didn't fit?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Now, yesterday on direct examination you said that you had no
23 communication with Mr. Corona except in Mexico City?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. The extent of that communication in Mexico City was for only

1623
157
1 two hours, correct?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. At that time that is when you claim that Mr. Corona refused to
4 accept Chappo Guzman's offer to remain in Mexico City?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. And do you stand by that testimony today?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. But isn't it true that you made two separate statements claiming
9 that you actually guarded Mr. Corona for three months immediately
10 following the discovery of the Agua Prieta tunnel?
11 A. That is not true.
12 Q. In fact I am referring to -- it's not a page number for the grand
13 jury transcript. It's page 331 of the disclosure. On June 11 of 2002,
14 you told agents and this United States Attorney that importantly in
15 1990 for approximately three months immediately following the
16 discovery of the Agua Prieta tunnel by United States authorities you
17 personally hid Corona in numerous different apartments located
18 throughout Mexico City. Do you deny saying that now?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Let me ask you if you deny saying this. Just about two weeks
21 later you had another meeting with three special agents and I am
22 referring to page 338 of the disclosure. You said after the discovery
of
23 the Agua Prieta tunnel Chappo Guzman ordered you to hide Corona in
24 Mexico City until the police investigation of the tunnel ended. And
25 then you stated that you complied and for approximately one month
1624
158
1 you stayed with Corona in an apartment in Mexico City.
2 A. That is not correct.
3 Q. So you deny making that statement to the three special agents?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Let's talk about money. Yesterday you testified that you
6 witnessed two payments being made to Corona?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. One was at a house where money was turned over in a
9 briefcase?
10 A. Correct, where Chappo was living.
11 Q. The other one was at the supermarket in a big plastic bag?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Those are the only two occasions that you saw Chappo Guzman
14 give money to Mr. Corona?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Let's go back to another interview that you had. I am referring
17 to --
18 A. Counselor --
19 Q. Just a moment, please. I am referring to June 11, 2002. In the
20 presence of the United States Attorney in San Diego and Special Agent
21 Andrew Sorrels, you stated that you observed Guzman pay Corona in
22 $500,000 increments collectively totaling several million dollars.
23 A. I deny it.
24 Q. In Mexico City when you claim Mr. Corona refused Chappo
25 Guzman's request, you communicated what Guzman's reaction was?

1625
159
1 A. "Let him get fucked."
2 Q. That was that?
3 A. That was all.
4 Q. Finally, today and yesterday you have mentioned that you didn't
5 tell us certain things because you weren't asked them?
6 A. Or because you are not allowing me to tell you.
7 Q. There is one part of the grand jury testimony I would like to ask
8 if you recall. At page 203 line 10, the United States Attorney asked
9 you, "Is there additional information that is specific events which you
10 have not been asked about?" And your response was, "No, sir."
11 A. Events, not about people.
12 MS. MATHESON: I have nothing further, Your Honor.
13 THE COURT: Let's take our morning recess before we
14 get to the redirect.
15 Mr. Flannigan, you do have redirect?
16 MR. FLANNIGAN: Yes, sir.
17 THE COURT: Then we'll take our morning recess at this
18 time. We will stand at recess for 15 minutes.
20 THE COURT: Stand at recess.
22 THE COURT: Record will reflect the presence of counsel,
23 the defendant and the presence of the jury, and Mr. Martinez on the
24 stand.
25 Could I see counsel at sidebar.

1626
160
1 (At sidebar.)
2 THE COURT: Do you want me to answer that question?
3 To say that -- well, the question is for the record:
4 "What is the difference between the disclosure and the
5 grand jury testimony?"
6 And we'll just tell them disclosure is police reports and
7 things of that nature disclosed to the defense as part of the case and
8 grand jury testimony are transcripts from a grand jury proceeding.
9 MS. MATHESON: That would be perfect.
10 MR. LACEY: That's fine.
11 (In open court.)
12 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we
13 received a note from the jury, a question, "What is the difference
14 between the disclosure and the grand jury testimony?"
15 Disclosure are police reports and things of that nature
16 that are disclosed to the defense as part of the process of preparing

for
17 trial.
18 Grand jury testimony are transcripts of grand jury
19 proceedings.
20 I am sorry, Mr. Flannigan. You may proceed.
21 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
23 Q. Mr. Martinez, how long was it that you -- can you hear me?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. How long was it that you worked for the Sinaloa cartel?
1627
161
1 A. From 1986 to 1998.
2 Q. So approximately eight years?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And how long of that time --
5 A. No. From 1986 to 1998.
6 Q. 12 years?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. How long of that period did you actually work for El Chappo
9 Guzman?
10 A. From 1986 to 1993.
11 Q. When you were debriefed by the agents, were you questioned
12 about that entire period?
13 A. What happens, counselor, is that I had many briefings. And one
14 of the things that I want to clarify here for the judge and for the
15 gentlemen of the jury, and a lot of times we had meetings and I don't
16 speak English very well and they spoke very little Spanish.
17 MS. MATHESON: I object. Nonresponsive to the
18 question posed to the witness.
19 MR. FLANNIGAN: Nonresponsive is really my
20 objection.
21 THE COURT: Well, we will strike that answer. Reask
22 your question.
24 Q. Approximately, if you can estimate, how many meetings did you
25 have, debriefing meetings did you have with the agents?

1628
162
1 A. In total since I arrived to the United States?
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. About 50 times.
4 Q. And when you were having meetings with the agents in San
5 Diego, what language were those meetings conducted in?
6 A. In English.
7 Q. And when you were first arrested, how was your command of the
8 English language?
9 A. Not much.
10 Q. How about your understanding of spoken English?
11 A. Not much.
12 Q. Counsel had questioned you about the fact that you had gone to
13 school for a period of time in Brownsville, Texas and had been
14 instructed in English. Do you remember that?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. When did that schooling end?
17 A. In 1980. You can check the number of my license with the
18 Federal Aviation Administration and with the General Administration of
19 Civil Aeronautics in Mexico. The number for my license is 7124. And
20 it happens that I was in Brownsville. But the only thing that you learn
21 there is how to communicate with the control tower in English.
22 Regarding the aviation, you read the books but
23 everything has to do about planes, with planes and the control tower.
24 We can have communication in English regarding planes with the
25 control tower. I don't have a problem with that.

1629
163
1 But there in school I wasn't taught how to speak basic
2 English. They taught me to fly because I was going to fly in Mexico.
3 Q. Now, after you got your license and you returned to Mexico and
4 began working in Mexico, did you have occasion to speak English?
5 A. Well, with whom?
6 Q. Did you try to keep it up?
7 A. Well, no.
8 Q. Now, you said you had a number of debriefings with the agents
9 and you're aware counsel was reading from certain reports that were
10 prepared?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Have you ever seen any of those reports yourself?
13 A. No, I haven't seen any papers.
14 Q. You haven't checked anything over for accuracy?
15 A. Never.
16 Q. Was it then after these debriefings that you testified before the
17 grand jury, these debriefings in San Diego?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. How long were you before the grand jury?
20 A. Pardon me?
21 Q. How long were you before the grand jury?
22 A. How much time? How long I was?
23 Q. Yes. One hour, ten hours, twelve hours?
24 A. We were -- I'm trying to remember if it was three or four times.
25 Each week for four hours.

1630
164
1 Q. So would it be fair to say you were trying to answer questions
2 during those three or four days four hours each time pertaining to 12
3 years of your life?
4 A. No, more years of my life because I gave information until I was
5 detained in 1998.
6 Q. And did you mention everyone that worked for El Chappo
7 Guzman during your grand jury testimony?
8 A. From the first day.
9 Q. But my question is: Did you mention the name of every single
10 person you had contact with during that 12-year period when you
11 appeared before the grand jury?
12 A. Of everyone that I mostly remembered.
13 Q. And of the questions that were asked?
14 A. Also.
15 Q. Now, Ms. Matheson read to you a portion of the grand jury and
16 basically she said -- and I am referring to page 203 and the question
17 was line 10. Question, "Is there additional information that is specific
18 events which you have not been asked about?" And you answered,
19 "No sir."
20 Now, let me ask you, did you also give these answers to
21 the following questions which followed that part beginning at line 14.
22 Question, "Have we covered to the best of your memory
23 the majority of the people you knew through your drug trafficking
24 relationships?" Answer, "Yes, sir."
25 A. Correct.
1631
165
1 Q. Your answer was, "Yes, sir." Then the question is, "But we've not
2 gone through each and every shipment. Is that fair to say?" And the
3 answer is, "Well, I believe that we have probably talked about
4 everything." Then the question was, "But not every shipment that
5 came in. We have spoken more in general terms. Is that fair to say?"
6 And the answer was, "Yes, sir."
7 Do you remember saying those things and answering
8 those questions like that?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Now, Ms. Matheson was asking you about a couple of payments
11 that had been made by El Chappo to the defendant Corona. One at El
12 Chappo's home in Guadalajara in a briefcase and the other at the
13 supermarket in a plastic bag.
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. You started to give an explanation about that. Can you give that
16 to the jury now.
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. Go ahead.
19 A. On the occasion where I met the architect Corona at Chappo's
20 home, he gave him a suitcase with money. Architect Corona arrived
21 and he said, "Hi, how are you doing, Joaquin?" And Chappo gave him
22 this briefcase. It was a suitcase, a briefcase. He said, "Here's what
23 you asked for."
24 On the second occasion, that was at the supermarket. I
25 saw that he gave him a plastic bag with money.

1632
166
1 Q. Now, let me talk to you once again on the debriefings. After
2 your grand jury testimony, did you have occasion within the past
3 couple of years to have debriefings with me?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. And what language did we speak in?
6 A. Sometimes in Spanish, sometimes in English.
7 Q. What would make the difference?
8 A. Well, that I was trying to explain things to you in English and
9 you wouldn't understand me. And that's when you did me the favor of
10 speaking to me in Spanish.
11 Q. Ms. Matheson asked you the question and she read it to you but
12 I will read it. The more you can convince the court regarding Corona
13 the more benefit it is to you. Do you remember her asking you that
14 question?
15 A. Yes, correct.
16 Q. You started to give an explanation on that point. Would you give
17 it to us now.
18 A. Well, the counselor, since I arrived here, she's been harassing
19 me every time I say something or if I testify against Mr. Corona that

I
20 am going to receive a benefit. What counselor doesn't know is that I
21 came to the United States extradited and I started cooperating with
22 the government since the first day.
23 The government told me that they weren't promising
24 anything. Only that if I helped with all my information and in all the
25 cases that they required me for if I could help, then they would make
1633
167
1 a recommendation to the judge.
2 They didn't tell me that it was to testify against
3 Mr. Corona because I've had other cases.
4 Q. When you testified before the grand jury, do you recall, did you
5 mention Felipe Corona to the grand jury?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. Ms. Matheson was asking you about the killings that were done
8 by El Chappo or by his trigger men.
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Let me just ask you some questions on that.
11 These killings was that something that you knew about
12 in advance?
13 A. No.
14 Q. How would you find out about the killings?
15 A. Because I was taking care of Chappo's office. Chappo would
16 arrive on different days three or four times a week. And he would
17 arrive and he would start making telephone calls. It was his office.
18 And you could hear what he was saying, what they were talking about,
19 and also what his bodyguards were talking about. That's how one
20 found out about things. Chappo never asked me for permission to kill
21 anybody.
22 Q. Did you ever tell El Chappo, "Hey, I don't want to hear about this
23 stuff"?
24 A. Many times.
25 Q. Now, when there was this talk going on about killings and that
1634
168
1 sort of thing, was that a common occurrence or just something you
2 would hear from time to time?
3 A. Well, no, it happened from time to time. Well, they are not also
4 going around killing people every day.
5 Q. Ms. Matheson talked to you about a war that was started and El
6 Chappo went and got permission from El Azul to start that war?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Would it be fair to say the killing got worse or got more --
9 became greater after the war started?
10 A. That's when the real problems began with the other cartel.
11 Q. What is the name of the other cartel?
12 A. Tijuana cartel.
13 Q. Ms. Matheson was asking you about El Guero Palma and his wife
14 and children being killed. Who were they killed by?
15 A. Counselor, in talking about deaths, I'm going to tell you what I
16 know, what I was told, because I wasn't present when Guero Palma's
17 wife was killed nor when Joaquin's people were killed or when Joaquin
18 ordered somebody to get killed. I know because Joaquin told me or
19 the people around Joaquin told me regarding Guero Palma's wife.
20 Q. What did they tell you about Guero Palma's wife?
21 MS. MATHESON: Object to hearsay.
22 MR. FLANNIGAN: This has come out on
23 cross-examination as to who killed Guero Palma's wife. He has been
24 testifying that what he knows comes from El Chappo.
25 THE COURT: Overruled. He may answer.

1635
169
1 THE WITNESS: Well, supposedly Miguel Felix Gallardo
2 had them killed.
3 BY MR. FLANNIGAN:
4 Q. Who does Miguel Felix Gallardo work for?
5 A. Miguel Felix Gallardo was supposed to be the boss for the
6 Tijuana cartel.
7 Q. Now, you say that you went to see this person El Azul. Who is El
8 Azul?
9 A. He's the boss of Chappo Guzman.
10 Q. What contact have you had with him?
11 A. When he was incarcerated, I would take messages to him from
12 Joaquin to the prison.
13 Q. You were questioned also about money, 5,000, 30,000, that sort
14 of thing. Were you ever involved in paying bribes to the Mexican
15 officials?
16 A. No, that was another person.
17 Q. You were questioned about different things that you have heard
18 in prison since you have been arrested, different people. Let me ask
19 you, El Chappo, is he under indictment?
20 A. Who?
21 Q. Mr. Chappo.
22 A. But who has indicted him?
23 Q. The American government.
24 A. I don't know.
25 Q. You were asked some questions by Ms. Matheson about the

1636
170
1 house --
2 A. I imagine. Pardon me. I imagine that he is under indictment.
3 He is one of the most wanted narco traffickers by this government, but
4 I don't know it for a fact.
5 Q. You were asked some questions by Ms. Matheson about the
6 house that was lent to you by El Chappo.
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Is that the same house where the bed was with the hydraulic lift
9 to the secret room?
10 A. Correct, in the main bedroom. It's in Murillo Street, Number
11 102. The neighborhood is Colonia Renaciamento.
12 Q. Is that the house where you previously had seen the defendant
13 Corona working?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. Now, you indicated in response to Ms. Matheson's question that
16 El Chappo at the same time had one of your houses?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. Is that the same house that you mentioned earlier that Griselda
19 was living at that you wanted to sell to pay for some of your attorney's
20 fees to fight the extradition?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Another question about the killings. There was some testimony
23 yesterday about a cardinal being killed.
24 A. Correct, Cardinal Juan Jose Posados Ocampo.
25 Q. Did El Chappo order his killing?

1637
171
1 A. No. They were looking for El Chappo to kill him.
2 Q. And who was looking for El Chappo to kill him?
3 A. Supposedly the Arellano Felixes.
4 Q. Is that a different family from the Tijuana cartel?
5 A. No, that is the Tijuana cartel family.
6 Q. It's just another name for them?
7 A. No. They are Arellano Felix. And the name of the cartel is the
8 Tijuana cartel because they live in Tijuana.
9 Q. Just like El Chappo's cartel was called the Sinaloa cartel?
10 A. Correct, and he's never in Sinaloa.
11 Q. Then how was it then that the cardinal got killed?
12 A. They were looking for El Chappo to kill him. El Chappo had gone
13 to Guadalajara to his house for some things. But he had a hunch,
14 somebody had told him, he had information that somebody was
15 looking for him to kill him. So he decided not to show up at his
16 houses that he had in Guadalajara. He stayed in a hotel in
17 Guadalajara.
18 The Arellanos had information that El Chappo was in
19 Guadalajara and that at some point he would be leaving or arriving to
20 the Guadalajara airport. They were looking for him specifically in
21 these places, in his houses and in the airport, so the moment he
22 arrived they could assassinate him.
23 So when El Chappo arrived at the airport and heading to
24 Puerto Vallarta, the Arellano people were waiting for him. And,
25 unfortunately, Cardinal Posados Ocampo stopped behind El Chappo's

1638
172
1 car in the Guadalajara airport. El Chappo got out through the door to
2 get his suitcase out from the back and he opened the trunk and while
3 he was standing there the cardinal arrived and stopped behind.
4 One of the ones who was waiting for El Chappo saw him
5 and yelled out to the others when he saw him there, "There he is,
6 there he is, there he is." The ones that were going to kill him got out
7 of their vehicles and they started firing on Chappo Guzman thinking
8 that the vehicle in back was part of his group.
9 Because El Chappo Guzman had as a habit to always
10 travel with one car in front, one car behind and people on the sides.
11 So they thought that it was Chappo Guzman's vehicle. It's not that
12 they confused him. They thought that they were Chappo Guzman's
13 gunmen.
14 And this is what I knew from El Chappo, from El
15 Chappo's trigger men, and from what I knew from my involvement
16 because I wasn't there at the airport to guarantee this to you. El
17 Chappo spoke to me about how he got away and everything.
18 Q. Now, Ms. Matheson was asking you about the compensation that
19 you received from the El Chappo. And she specifically asked you when
20 you were having your debriefing with the agents you were bragging
21 about getting a million dollars per year.
22 Now, let me ask you, did you actually get a million
23 dollars per year for the entire 12 years?
24 A. No. From the middle of 1989 to 1993.
25 Q. You got a million a year?

1639
173
1 A. Yes. May I explain to you about what the attorney was asking
2 me regarding a bonus?
3 Q. Please explain it.
4 A. What happens is that the Colombians would sometimes offer me
5 a drug bonus for each shipment that was coming. Or people, simply
6 for introducing them to El Chappo, for people who wanted to meet
7 him, they would give me $25,000. People who wanted to work with
8 him, to meet him would offer me $25,000 simply for the introduction,
9 but El Chappo knew about it.
10 Q. How would he find out about it?
11 A. Because I would tell him before receiving it. And it wasn't a lot
12 of times. One or two times I took people with him and they gave me
13 the $25,000.
14 Q. Ms. Matheson was asking you about other smuggling methods,
15 specifically bringing in cocaine on trains with oil tanker cars.
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. Was cocaine also hidden in soap?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. How was that done?
20 A. We would pack it in bags of Ariel clothing detergent. Like Tide

in
21 the United States, in Mexico it is called Ariel. So we would stick the
22 kilos of cocaine in the soap.
23 Q. Ms. Matheson was also asking you about the loads that were lost
24 of cocaine and there was some confusion about that starting out with
25 the loads being seized by the government and then loads which were
1640
174
1 lost at sea.
2 Let's start out with the loads that were seized by the
3 government. I am referring to the Mexican government. You had
4 indicated that you remembered either one or two seizures that you
5 had not thought about yesterday.
6 A. Not that they hadn't occurred, just that the answer the attorney
7 gave me, I don't know what I was thinking about.
8 Q. Tell us about these seizures by the Mexican government.
9 A. The Mexican government confiscated seven tons, 300 kilos in
10 cans of jalapeno chiles.
12 A. On the border, Tecate. That's why I am here.
14 A. The seizure?
15 Q. Yes, sir.
16 A. In 1992 -- excuse me -- 1993.
17 Q. So your indictment has to do with that seizure?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Even though the seizure was in Mexico?
20 A. Yes, sir.
21 Q. That cocaine where was it intended to be delivered?
22 A. It was crossed through Tijuana and delivered in Los Angeles.
23 Q. You indicated another seizure that you remembered.
24 A. Yes. A container in Manzanillo, Colima with 2,900 kilos.

1641
175
1 A. That was around 1989. And the agents also know about this,
2 but I possibly didn't say it to the grand jury because it slipped my
3 mind. I forgot about it, not that I was trying to hide it.
4 Q. Counsel started then talking about losses at sea. There was
5 some question about eight loads that were lost at sea. Do you know
6 anything about that?
7 A. Yes.
9 A. There was this occasion where we were waiting for these planes
10 in Culiacan. And the landing strip was next to the beach. At daybreak
11 the fog got over onto the landing strip. And when the planes arrived,
12 you couldn't see the landing strip. They ran out of fuel in the air.
And
13 they started circling, waiting for the fog to clear so that they could
see
14 the strip. They ran out of fuel and they started landing in the sea,
15 right by the sea where they could. The drugs were taken out and the
16 planes were lost. They were taken by the sea.
17 Q. Now, counsel spent a considerable amount of time talking about
18 trips to Colombia, trips that you made to Colombia. And there was
19 some question about a third flight to Colombia. You wanted to give an
20 explanation on that. Can you give that to us now.
21 A. What happens is the third trip that I notated there is the one
22 that I was supposed to take.
23 Q. What third trip were you supposed to take?
24 A. The first one that I did where I didn't do anything and then we
25 made two more and that is why I said it was three times.
1642
176
1 Q. Now, counsel was asking you yesterday about whether you had
2 received $2,500 in cash specifically from the United States
3 government.
4 A. Counsel, I haven't received a dime or anything from the
5 government of the United States of America.
6 Q. Do you know whether your court-appointed lawyer has received
7 anything from the United States government?
8 A. Possibly her payments, her fees. She's an attorney named by
9 the government.
10 Q. Counsel was asking you about one of the flights to Colombia
11 where you met Carlos Uribe.
12 A. Yes. She asked me why I omitted mentioning Carlos Uribe. I
13 didn't. The thing is that Carlos Uribe was the owner of the cocaine.
14 And the person who picked me up was simply a driver for him. But I
15 couldn't explain that to counsel because she would say yes or no.
16 Q. Carlos Uribe was a Colombian?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. What cartel was he with?
19 A. Medellin.
20 Q. Counsel also was asking you about the number of attempts on
21 your life and there was some confusion about that.
22 A. Plenty of confusion.
23 Q. Can you explain to us exactly what happened to you.
24 A. Will you allow me to speak?
25 Q. Yes, sir.
1643
177
1 A. There were three attempts at homicides with a knife, a dagger,
2 and the other with two grenades. The first two attempts where they
3 tried to kill me happened in the same jail, Reclusorio Preventivo
4 Oriente, in the preventive jail. On the first occasion I received eight
5 stab wounds. On the second occasion, seven. This was in the same
6 jail in Mexico City. The jail where I was housed while waiting or facing
7 my extradition process to the United States.
8 After the second assassination attempt, they transfered
9 me to another prison also within Mexico City called the Reclusorio
10 Preventivo Sur, southern jail of the south. Two days after I arrived,
11 they attempted another time on my life, but fortunately my shirt --
12 they grabbed me by my shirt and the shirt came off and they cut me
13 with a blade here. When the shirt came off, I ran towards the door
14 and the police rescued me, in quotes.
15 They transferred me to a special place within that prison
16 where I was locked up in the cell 23 hours a day without coming out
17 and with no neighbors because they said they had information that
18 someone was out to kill me and someone very high up because they
19 were distributing a lot of money to kill me. So the warden of the
20 prison left a person sleeping -- a policeman sleeping next to me.
21 After about two months of segregation, a person on
22 visiting day came in with two grenades and a gun. But to get into the
23 cell where I was, there were bars. So what the guy did was he called
24 the policeman that was near the bars of the cell, the guy was taking
25 care of me.
1644
178
1 So the policeman came out. And when he came out, he
2 threatened him with a gun and he said, "Open the door, you son of a
3 bitch." The policeman didn't want to open the door. And this guy
4 pulled the pins out of the grenades.
5 So I was locked in. What he wanted to do was come in
6 and throw the grenades inside. And there was no place for me to run
7 because the cell was locked. The policeman never, never opened the
8 door, never gave him the key. The guy threatened him and yelled,
9 "We are going to blow. We are going to blow." The policeman said, "I
10 don't have the key. I don't have the key."
11 When the other guards saw this movement, they started
12 locking down doors and asking for help because this guy -- this
13 argument with the policeman lasted about 30 minutes. A helicopter
14 arrived above the prison. The guy -- I was seeing what was
15 happening with a mirror in the door.
16 When I -- the guy got very nervous. He threw the
17 grenades through the door towards where I was in the cell. When I
18 saw the grenades land, I jumped over to the bathroom. The grenades
19 exploded. The building collapsed. That was it.
20 After that I was sent for security to the federal prison,

to
21 the Mexican federal prison, maximum security federal prison. That's
22 where I lost my case and I was extradited to the United States.
23 Q. Counsel was asking you about your debriefing where you had
24 indicated that El Chappo had ordered your assassination.
25 A. Yes.
1645
179
1 Q. How do you know El Chappo ordered your death?
2 A. Because the chiefs of police told me. They said somebody
3 ordered you killed, somebody that you used to work for that you know
4 a lot about. Since I got the stabbings, they told me it was Chappo.
5 Because some guys Chappo sent for a ranch that was in
6 my name, those same guys turned around from where I was
7 imprisoned at and contracted people to have me killed. I gave them
8 the ranch and they sent somebody to kill me the next day. That is
9 where it started.
10 MR. FLANNIGAN: Thank you. No further questions.
11 THE COURT: May this witness be excused?
12 MS. MATHESON: Yes, Your Honor.
13 THE COURT: Thank you, sir. You may step down.
14 THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, may I say something?
15 THE COURT: No, sir. You can only answer the questions
16 asked by the lawyers. Thank you. You may step down.
17 We are going to take our recess at this time.
18 Mr. Flannigan, did you have something else or do you
19 want to take a recess at this time?
20 MR. FLANNIGAN: Take a recess.
21 THE COURT: We will take our recess at this time, ladies
22 and gentlemen. Stand at recess for lunch. We will see you at 1:15.
24 THE COURT: The record will reflect the jury has

1646
180
1 Mr. Flannigan, is there some matter you wish to raise at
2 this time?
3 MR. FLANNIGAN: No, sir.
5 MS. MATHESON: No, thank you.
6 THE COURT: We stand at recess until 1:15.
8 (End of partial proceedings.)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

El Chapo&#39;s Extradition Challenge

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

El Chapo&#39;s Extradition Challenge

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:09-cr-00466-BMC-RLM Document 110 Filed 08/03/17 Page 1 of 33 PageID #: 1343

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :

- against - : S4 09 Cr. 466 (BMC)

JOAQUIN ARCHIVALDO GUZMAN LOERA, :

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT JOAQUIN

Federal Defenders of New York, Inc.

Counsel for Joaquin Archivaldo Guzman Loera

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :

- against - : S4 09 Cr. 466 (BMC)

JOAQUIN ARCHIVALDO GUZMAN LOERA, :

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT JOAQUIN

Defendant Joaquin Archivaldo Guzman Loera (Guzman) respectfully

submits this memorandum in support of his motion to dismiss the Fourth

Superseding Indictment (the Indictment) on the ground that this

prosecution violates the Rule of Specialty contained in the Extradition Treaty

17(c), May 4, 1978, [1979] 31 U.S.T. 5059.

Guzmans rights in the event the Barinas rule is overturned.

On or about May 20, 2016, the Mexican government granted requests

to this country. These extradition requests referenced indictments pending in

of extradition, filing actions for amparo proceedings, which were denied on

October 20, 2016. See Draft English Translation of Redacted Consent

Agreement (Redacted Consent Agreement), Bates No. 466, attached hereto

as Exhibit A. Mr. Guzman appealed these decisions. However, on January 19,

Agreement itself, no extradition request based on the instant Indictment was

conspiracy to import and possess with the intent to distribute cocaine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). The charged conspiracy supposedly began

on a date unknown to the grand jury and is alleged to have continued up to

June 23, 1995.

The WDTX indictment charges Mr. Guzman, in seven separate counts,

with racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d); conspiracy to possess

with the intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

846 and 841(a)(1); conspiracy to import cocaine and marijuana, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. 963, 952(a), and 960(a); conspiracy to launder money, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(2)(A); conspiracy to possess firearms, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c) and (o); murder, in violation of 21

848(e)(1)(A); and engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, in violation

and September 8, 2009.

were filed in June 2015. He was arrested in Mexico in January 2016. As is

Mexico, both extradition requests contained witness declarations in support

of the extradition petitions. 2 In support of its extradition petition to the

Mendez, dated 11-1-2012. 3 Fierro Mendez is an admitted and convicted

corrupt former Mexican law enforcement official and narco-trafficker. At the

government knew or should have known that his declaration contained

material falsehoods and misrepresentations. Specifically, Fierro Mendez

In 2010, however, Fierro Mendez, testifying as a cooperating witness for the

States v. Chavez-Bettancourt, et al., 08-CR-2985-DB, (WDTX) Dkt. No. 847 at

Mendezs declaration appears to directly contradict his sworn trial testimony

in the declaration, contrary to his trial testimony, that he continued to work

the police force in Juarez. Id. Dkt. No. 847at 6-7.

Fierro Mendezs trial testimony in United States v. Chavez-Bettancourt

were contradicted by his earlier, sworn testimony in the United States

Guzmans extradition to the WDTX, Kristal M. Wade, is noticed as a lead

attorney in United States v. Chavez-Bettancourt, the government can hardly

The government also appears to have knowingly submitted a false and

misleading witness statement to secure Mr. Guzmans extradition to the

SDCA. In June 2015, Assistant United States Attorney Todd Robinson

submitted an affidavit in support of the United States governments request

the United States governments request for extradition. The evidence

included the sworn declarations of two civilian witnesses: Miguel Angel

Martinez-Martinez (Martinez-Martinez) and another cooperating witness. 5

In his sworn declaration dated November 12, 2014, Martinez-Martinez

Martinez, attached hereto as Exhibit C at 1. He further stated that his first

El Chapo's Extradition Challenge

El Chapo's Extradition Challenge