Asking “Captain” Is Enough: EEZ-as-High-Seas and Proof of Statelessness under the MDLEA in United States v. Guerrero‑Rosario

Asking “Captain” Is Enough: EEZ-as-High-Seas and Proof of Statelessness under the MDLEA in United States v. Guerrero‑Rosario

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Non-Argument Calendar, unpublished)
Date: October 16, 2025
Case: United States v. Jesus Alexander Guerrero‑Rosario (consolidated with United States v. Jeifry Antonio Vasquez), Nos. 23‑13356 & 23‑13342
Panel: Jill Pryor, Lagoa, and Wilson, Circuit Judges (per curiam)

Introduction

This consolidated appeal stems from a Coast Guard interdiction approximately 115 nautical miles off Aruba, where officers boarded an unmarked, unflagged vessel carrying 941 kilograms of cocaine and two men—Jeifry Antonio Vasquez and Jesus Alexander Guerrero‑Rosario. Each defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine on a vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), 46 U.S.C. §§ 70501–08, and received 78‑month sentences. On appeal, both defendants challenged their convictions on statutory and constitutional grounds; Vasquez also challenged the denial of a minor‑role reduction at sentencing.

The opinion reaffirms and clarifies critical MDLEA doctrines in the Eleventh Circuit: (1) a vessel is “without nationality” under § 70502(d)(1)(B) when no one aboard makes a “claim of nationality or registry” after being asked, even where Coast Guard officers use the term “captain” rather than the statute’s phrase “master or individual in charge”; (2) waters within another nation’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are part of the “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes; and (3) there is no nexus requirement between the offense conduct and the United States for MDLEA prosecutions of stateless vessels on the high seas. The court also upholds the denial of a U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 minor‑role reduction to a courier involved in transporting nearly a ton of cocaine.

Summary of the Opinion

  • MDLEA Jurisdiction (Statelessness): The government established that the vessel was “without nationality” under 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(B). Both defendants denied being the “captain,” and—when asked in Spanish—each declined to produce registration documents or to assert a claim of nationality for the boat. There was no flag, no markings, and no papers aboard. The court held this was sufficient to treat the vessel as stateless.
  • Constitutional Challenges:
    • Felonies Clause and EEZ: The panel held that enforcement of the MDLEA in a foreign EEZ is proper because such waters are part of the “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes, relying on binding circuit precedent.
    • No Nexus Requirement: The court rejected, as foreclosed, arguments that due process or the Felonies Clause requires a U.S. nexus for prosecutions involving stateless vessels on the high seas.
  • Sentencing (Minor‑Role Reduction): The district court did not clearly err in denying Vasquez a minor‑role adjustment under § 3B1.2. As one of only two participants aboard a vessel transporting over 900 kilograms of cocaine, his role was integral to the relevant conduct—transporting the drugs—and comparable to his codefendant’s role.
  • Disposition: Convictions and sentences affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

  • United States v. De La Cruz, 443 F.3d 830 (11th Cir. 2006): The panel’s statelessness determination tracks De La Cruz, which upheld statelessness findings where a vessel flew no flag, had no registration, bore no nationality markings, and no one made any nationality claim—especially when the person in charge hid among the crew. Here, the absence of indicia and the defendants’ refusal to claim nationality fit comfortably within this framework.
  • United States v. Cabezas‑Montano, 949 F.3d 567, 589 n.14 (11th Cir. 2020): Though the statute uses “master or individual in charge,” the court endorsed the sufficiency of Coast Guard questioning that reasonably afforded anyone with authority the opportunity to claim nationality, even if the exact statutory phrase was not used. The opinion relies on this approach to reject the defendants’ “captain vs. individual in charge” semantic objection.
  • United States v. Nunez, 1 F.4th 976 (11th Cir. 2021): Cited for the principle that the § 70502(d) list of statelessness circumstances is non‑exhaustive, underscoring the flexible, fact‑sensitive nature of the statelessness inquiry.
  • United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182 (11th Cir. 2016): Provides standards of review: factual findings on jurisdiction are reviewed for clear error; relevant also to minor‑role determinations under clear‑error review.
  • United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815, 823–27 (11th Cir. 2024): Controls the EEZ question, holding that a foreign EEZ is part of the “high seas” for purposes of Congress’s Felonies Clause power and that customary international law does not narrow Congress’s constitutional authority in this context.
  • United States v. Canario‑Vilomar, 128 F.4th 1374 (11th Cir. 2025): Recent circuit authority reinforcing the Felonies Clause analysis, the modern vintage of the EEZ concept, and that a guilty plea does not waive constitutional challenges to the statute of conviction. It also confirms precedent foreclosing nexus arguments.
  • United States v. Campbell, 743 F.3d 802 (11th Cir. 2014): Binding authority rejecting any nexus requirement and upholding Congress’s authority to reach drug trafficking on stateless vessels on the high seas; due process is satisfied by the universal condemnation and clear notice associated with such conduct.
  • United States v. Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc): Sets the two‑step minor‑role analysis focusing on the defendant’s role in the relevant conduct and vis‑à‑vis other participants, and recognizes that transporting large quantities can justify denying a role reduction.
  • United States v. Valois, 915 F.3d 717 (11th Cir. 2019): Upholds denial of role reductions to defendants aboard a stateless vessel where none of the participants were minor; supports the panel’s conclusion given the two‑person crew and massive drug quantity.
  • United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2008): Confirms that prior panel precedent binds subsequent panels absent en banc or Supreme Court abrogation, which the court invokes to explain why Alfonso, Campbell, and related cases foreclose the constitutional challenges.

Legal Reasoning

1) MDLEA Statelessness and Subject‑Matter Jurisdiction. The MDLEA criminalizes drug trafficking conduct aboard “a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” including a “vessel without nationality.” See 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a), 70502(c)(1)(A), (d). A vessel qualifies as “without nationality” if “the master or individual in charge fails, on request of an officer of the United States authorized to enforce applicable provisions of United States law, to make a claim of nationality or registry for that vessel.” § 70502(d)(1)(B). A proper “claim of nationality or registry” must be made in one of three ways: producing nationality documents, flying the nation’s flag, or a verbal claim by the master or individual in charge. § 70502(e).

Here, the Coast Guard officer, speaking Spanish, asked each man (a) whether he was the “captain,” and (b) whether he had registration documents for any country or wished to “claim any nationality for the boat.” Each denied being the captain and declined to claim nationality. The vessel had no flag, markings, or papers. Those facts fit § 70502(d)(1)(B): after a request by an authorized officer, the person(s) with authority failed to make a claim. The panel also acknowledged that while the statute says “master or individual in charge,” Coast Guard questioning that uses common parlance (“captain”) is adequate so long as everyone aboard is asked about nationality, thereby affording whoever does have authority an opportunity to claim nationality—precisely the scenario recognized in Cabezas‑Montano.

2) EEZ as “High Seas” under the Felonies Clause; Customary International Law. The defendants argued that interdiction within Venezuela’s EEZ placed the vessel outside the “high seas,” depriving Congress of Felonies Clause power. The court rejected this, citing Alfonso’s holding that a foreign EEZ is part of the “high seas” for constitutional purposes and that customary international law does not limit Congress’s Article I power to define and punish felonies committed there. The panel faithfully applied Alfonso and Canario‑Vilomar, treating the EEZ/high‑seas issue as settled.

3) No Nexus Requirement; Due Process. The panel deemed foreclosed any claim that due process or the Felonies Clause demands a U.S. nexus for prosecutions of stateless vessels on the high seas. Campbell controls: Congress can reach any stateless vessel on the high seas engaged in controlled‑substance distribution; due process is satisfied because trafficking on stateless vessels is universally condemned and the MDLEA provides clear notice.

4) Sentencing—Minor‑Role Reduction. Applying De Varon’s two‑step analysis and § 3B1.2’s commentary, the panel affirmed the denial of a minor‑role reduction. The “relevant conduct” was transporting cocaine aboard the vessel; Vasquez’s role—as one of only two crewmembers ferrying over 900 kilograms—was essential. His role was comparable to his codefendant’s, and the sheer quantity supports an inference that his participation was not “minor.” Valois supports the conclusion that in small‑crew maritime trafficking cases, it is often reasonable for a court to find that none of the participants is “minor.”

5) Standards of Review. The court reviewed legal questions about subject‑matter jurisdiction and constitutionality de novo (with plain‑error review for constitutional arguments raised for the first time on appeal), factual jurisdictional findings and the minor‑role determination for clear error, and adhered to the presumption that a district court’s choice between two permissible views of the evidence rarely constitutes clear error.

Impact

  • Operational Clarity for Coast Guard Interdictions: The opinion underscores that Coast Guard boarding teams satisfy § 70502(d)(1)(B) when they (1) ask everyone aboard about nationality/registry, and (2) the vessel lacks flag, paperwork, or markings. Use of common terms like “captain” does not defeat statelessness proof if the questioning affords anyone with authority the chance to claim nationality.
  • Entrenchment of EEZ‑as‑High‑Seas: By applying Alfonso and Canario‑Vilomar, the panel further cements that the Eleventh Circuit treats foreign EEZs as “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes. This significantly limits defendants’ ability to mount EEZ‑based jurisdictional defenses in MDLEA cases.
  • No Nexus Arguments Remain Foreclosed: The court again rejects nexus‑based due process and constitutional challenges for stateless vessels, sustaining the MDLEA’s broad extraterritorial reach.
  • Sentencing in Maritime Courier Cases: The decision reflects the persistent difficulty of obtaining a minor‑role reduction when the relevant conduct is the transportation of a very large drug quantity by a small crew. Defendants must present persuasive evidence that their role was substantially less culpable than other known participants in the relevant conduct, not the broader conspiracy.
  • Recognition of the Zero‑Point Offender Reduction: While not disputed on appeal, the district court applied the two‑level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1 for defendants with zero criminal history points, then varied downward to 78 months. This highlights the continued practical significance of the 2023 Guidelines amendments in MDLEA cases.
  • Persuasive but Unpublished: Although “Not for Publication,” the decision is consistent with and bolstered by published, binding Eleventh Circuit precedents. It offers practical guidance for future interdictions and litigation within the circuit.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • MDLEA: A federal statute that criminalizes drug trafficking on vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction, including stateless vessels on the high seas, regardless of where the conduct occurs.
  • Vessel “Without Nationality” (Stateless): A boat with no national flag, papers, or markings, and on which no one claims nationality or registry when asked by U.S. officers. Stateless vessels are subject to MDLEA jurisdiction.
  • Claim of Nationality or Registry: Under § 70502(e), a valid claim occurs only by (1) producing nationality documents, (2) flying a national flag, or (3) a verbal claim by the master/individual in charge.
  • “Master or Individual in Charge” vs. “Captain”: The statute uses “master or individual in charge,” but practically, Coast Guard inquiries using “captain” can suffice if every person is asked about nationality, ensuring whoever has authority can make the claim.
  • Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): A maritime zone extending up to 200 nautical miles from a country’s coastline, where the coastal state has resource rights but not full sovereignty. In the Eleventh Circuit, foreign EEZs are treated as part of the “high seas” for Felonies Clause analysis.
  • Felonies Clause: U.S. Constitution, art. I, § 8, cl. 10, allowing Congress to define and punish felonies committed on the high seas. It supports extraterritorial application of the MDLEA to stateless vessels.
  • Nexus Requirement: A supposed need to show a connection between the offense and the U.S. The Eleventh Circuit does not require this for stateless vessels on the high seas under the MDLEA.
  • Minor‑Role Reduction (U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2): A two‑level decrease for defendants less culpable than most participants in the relevant conduct. Courts consider understanding of the scheme, planning, decision‑making authority, participation, and expected benefit; transporting very large quantities with a small crew often weighs against a reduction.
  • Zero‑Point Offender Reduction (U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1): A two‑level reduction for defendants with zero criminal history points who meet specified criteria, introduced in the 2023 Guidelines amendments.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s per curiam decision in United States v. Guerrero‑Rosario affirms key MDLEA doctrines: statelessness is established when no one aboard claims nationality after being asked—even if officers say “captain” instead of “individual in charge”—and foreign EEZs are part of the “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes. Nexus‑based constitutional challenges remain foreclosed for stateless vessels. On sentencing, the court reinforces that maritime couriers transporting very large quantities on small crews are unlikely to secure minor‑role reductions when their roles are integral to the relevant conduct.

While unpublished, the opinion is firmly anchored in—and further operationalizes—binding circuit precedent (Alfonso, Campbell, De La Cruz, Cabezas‑Montano, De Varon, Valois, and Canario‑Vilomar). Practically, it offers clear guidance for maritime interdictions and MDLEA litigation: comprehensive nationality inquiries, even in common parlance and conducted in the suspects’ language, will generally suffice to establish statelessness; constitutional defenses premised on EEZ location or lack of U.S. nexus will fail; and attempts to obtain minor‑role reductions in two‑person, large‑load maritime transport cases face an uphill battle.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Comments