Three defendants, Angel Luvi-Ramirez, Jose Hernandez, and Wilmar Mosquera, were convicted in the Southern District of Florida for conspiring to possess and distributing cocaine on a go-fast vessel. In April 2023, the U.S. Coast Guard intercepted the unflagged vessel approximately 125 nautical miles off the coast of the Dominican Republic. The defendants threw packages of cocaine overboard when approached. The vessel's master, Hernandez, identified himself to the Coast Guard but refused to claim any nationality for the vessel. Consequently, the United States treated the vessel as one without nationality. The defendants moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) was unconstitutional as applied because the conduct occurred in another nation's exclusive economic zone and lacked a nexus to the United States. After the district court denied the motion, the defendants pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the constitutionality of the statute. They were sentenced to terms ranging from 48 to 76 months imprisonment.
The court addressed the constitutional challenges raised by all three defendants and additional arguments raised solely by Luvi-Ramirez. First, regarding the location of the offense, the defendants argued that the Felonies Clause of the Constitution does not authorize Congress to punish offenses in another nation's exclusive economic zone because such waters are not 'high seas' under customary international law. The court rejected this, citing binding precedent that exclusive economic zones are considered part of the 'high seas' for MDLEA purposes. The court clarified that Congress's authority under the Felonies Clause is not limited by customary international law in this context. Second, the defendants argued that the prosecutions violated due process because the offenses lacked a sufficient nexus to the United States. The court held that this challenge is also foreclosed by precedent, noting that the MDLEA provides clear notice that drug trafficking aboard stateless vessels is prohibited by all nations, and the prosecution of noncitizens on the high seas does not offend due process principles. Regarding Luvi-Ramirez's additional arguments, he claimed that a specific MDLEA provision defining 'vessel without nationality' was unconstitutional and that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of statelessness. The court found these arguments waived or failed under plain error review because Luvi-Ramirez raised them for the first time on appeal without citing supporting case law. Furthermore, the record showed that the government relied on a different statutory provision—where the master fails to make a claim of nationality—rather than the provision Luvi-Ramirez challenged. Since the master refused to claim nationality, the vessel was properly treated as stateless under that provision.
The district court's judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed. The decision reinforces the Eleventh Circuit's precedent that the MDLEA applies to stateless vessels in international waters, including those within another nation's exclusive economic zone, without requiring a specific nexus to the United States. No remand instructions were issued as the case was disposed of via summary affirmance.