Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 522, 72 S.Ct. 509, 511-12, 96 L.Ed. 541 (1952) (footnote omitted). We, too, adhere to this doctrine “unequivocally established in United States v. Winter, 509 F.2d 975 (5th Cir.[1975]).” United States v. Darby, 744 F.2d 1508, 1530 (11th Cir.1984). “[W]e are convinced that ... a defendant in a federal criminal trial whether citizen or alien, whether arrested within or beyond the territory of the United States may not successfully challenge the District Court’s jurisdiction over his person on the grounds that his presence before the Court was unlawfully secured.... [T]he Supreme Court has not receded from Ker or Frisbie, and nei ther has this Court.” Winter, 509 F.2d at 985-87 (footnotes omitted); see also Remeta v. Singletary, 85 F.Sd 513, 518-19 (11th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, extradition procedures, even if
holding that denying a pretransfer hearing to a defendant extradited under the interstate agreement on detainers in the absence of a waiver did not deprive the demanding state of jurisdiction to try him for murder holding sixtonineday absence from ohio for vacation purposes does not rise to the level of an act engaging in interstate commerce mooting question of whether absence to attend college is interstate commerce holding that the united states breach of the plea agreement releases the defendant from the appeal waiver holding remedial in nature the interstate agreement on detainers act of 1965 holding that a plea agreement with a waiver of direct appeal rights does not include a waiver of collateral remedies because the government could have included a waiver of collateral rights in the plea agreement and chose not to do so