Three defendants—Tony Rafael Henriquez, Jose Antonio Acosta-Pinedo, and Julio Javier Liriano-Mercado—appealed their convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The offenses occurred on a vessel within Colombia's Exclusive Economic Zone. The defendants challenged the district court's subject-matter jurisdiction and the constitutionality of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA). They argued that the statute was unconstitutional as applied because the crime happened outside the high seas, that the government failed to prove the vessel was without nationality, that the Netherlands' involvement in the enforcement action deprived the court of jurisdiction, and that the statute violated due process by being void for vagueness and lacking a nexus to the United States.
The court addressed four primary arguments. First, regarding the location of the offense, the court held that the term 'high seas' in the MDLEA includes a foreign nation's Exclusive Economic Zone. Relying on its recent decision in United States v. Alfonso, the court concluded that Congress has authority under the Felonies Clause to criminalize drug trafficking on vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction regardless of whether the act occurs outside territorial waters. Second, on the issue of statutory jurisdiction, the court found that the vessel was 'without nationality' because the master, Liriano-Mercado, identified himself as the person in charge but remained silent when asked if he would make a claim of nationality. Under 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(B), this failure to claim nationality renders the vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Third, the court rejected the argument that the Netherlands' involvement in the enforcement action stripped the district court of jurisdiction. The record showed that U.S. Coast Guard officers assumed tactical control and carried out the boarding, and the court noted that cooperation with foreign allies is commonplace in MDLEA prosecutions. Finally, the court dismissed due process challenges. It held that the MDLEA is not void for vagueness because it provides sufficient notice that silence regarding nationality results in a stateless vessel. The court also found that the lack of 'reverse Miranda' warnings was waived by the defendants' guilty pleas and that the statute does not require a nexus to the United States because universal and protective principles support its extraterritorial reach.
The defendants' convictions stand, and they remain imprisoned for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The ruling reinforces the Eleventh Circuit's precedent that the MDLEA applies broadly to drug trafficking in foreign Exclusive Economic Zones and clarifies that a vessel's statelessness is established by the master's failure to claim nationality upon request. No remand instructions were issued; the district court's judgments are affirmed.