EEZ-as-“High Seas,” Congress’s MDLEA Statelessness Definition, and No-Nexus Requirement Reaffirmed; Minor-Role Denial for High-Quantity Courier — United States v. Vasquez (11th Cir. 2025)

EEZ-as-“High Seas,” Congress’s MDLEA Statelessness Definition, and No-Nexus Requirement Reaffirmed; Minor-Role Denial for High-Quantity Courier — United States v. Vasquez (11th Cir. 2025)

Introduction

In this consolidated, unpublished, per curiam decision, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the MDLEA convictions of three Dominican nationals—Willi Ariel Mendez, Jose Felix Vasquez, and Adalberto Marmolejos—arising from a Coast Guard interdiction approximately 95 nautical miles off Aruba. The defendants pleaded guilty to a conspiracy count under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), 46 U.S.C. §§ 70501–70508, after the Coast Guard observed them discard bales later determined to contain 226 kilograms of cocaine. On appeal, they mounted constitutional challenges to the MDLEA’s extraterritorial reach and its statutory definition of “vessel without nationality,” and asserted a due process “nexus” requirement. Separately, Marmolejos challenged the district court’s denial of a two-level “minor role” reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.

The panel, applying and reinforcing recent Eleventh Circuit precedents, rejected all constitutional challenges and affirmed Marmolejos’s sentence. Although unpublished and therefore not precedential in its own right, the opinion is important in cementing the Circuit’s post-2024 framework for MDLEA enforcement:

  • Other states’ exclusive economic zones (EEZs) are part of the “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes.
  • Congress may treat as “stateless” a vessel whose claimed flag state neither confirms nor denies registry.
  • No U.S. nexus is required to prosecute drug trafficking on a stateless vessel on the high seas; due process is not offended.
  • Couriers piloting vessels carrying very large quantities of narcotics will face a high bar for minor-role reductions, especially under the Eleventh Circuit’s De Varon framework.

Summary of the Opinion

The court affirmed the defendants’ convictions under the MDLEA. It held that:

  • EEZ waters remain part of the “high seas” under the Constitution’s Felonies Clause, and customary international law does not limit Congress’s power in this domain. The panel relied on United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024).
  • Congress permissibly defined “vessel without nationality” to include vessels for which a claimed flag state “neither confirms nor denies” nationality, per 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(C). The panel relied on United States v. Canario-Vilomar, 128 F.4th 1374 (11th Cir. 2025).
  • Due process does not require a nexus between the offense and the United States when prosecuting drug trafficking on stateless vessels on the high seas, consistent with United States v. Campbell, 743 F.3d 802 (11th Cir. 2014).

The panel also affirmed Marmolejos’s 75-month sentence, holding that the district court did not clearly err in denying a minor-role reduction given his critical function piloting a vessel loaded with 226 kilograms of cocaine and the substantial payment he stood to receive.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Role in the Decision

The opinion rests squarely on a short list of Eleventh Circuit authorities decided across the last decade—two of them very recent—that collectively define the Circuit’s current MDLEA jurisprudence:

  • United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024):
    • Holding: For purposes of the Felonies Clause (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 10), other nations’ EEZs are part of the “high seas.” Consequently, Congress may define and punish felonies (including MDLEA drug crimes) committed in foreign EEZs.
    • Relevance: Directly foreclosed the defendants’ claim that EEZ waters off Venezuela were not “high seas,” and their assertion that customary international law limits the Felonies Clause. The panel quoted Alfonso’s rejection of the argument that customary international law constrains Congress’s constitutional authority in this area.
  • United States v. Canario-Vilomar, 128 F.4th 1374 (11th Cir. 2025):
    • Holding: Congress did not exceed its Felonies Clause authority by defining “vessel without nationality” to include vessels whose claimed flag state neither confirms nor denies registry. International law cannot limit Congress’s definitional choices for MDLEA statelessness.
    • Relevance: Controlled the panel’s rejection of the challenge to 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(C), which the Coast Guard applied after the Dominican Republic could “neither confirm nor deny” the vessel’s registry.
  • United States v. Campbell, 743 F.3d 802 (11th Cir. 2014):
    • Holding: No nexus to the United States is required to prosecute drug trafficking on stateless vessels in international waters; such prosecutions do not violate due process because the MDLEA provides clear notice of universal condemnation of the conduct.
    • Relevance: Disposed of the defendants’ due process and nexus arguments, particularly as their vessel was deemed stateless.
  • United States v. Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc):
    • Holding: Established a two-step framework for minor-role determinations under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2—(1) compare defendant’s role to the relevant conduct for which he is held accountable; (2) compare to other participants in that relevant conduct. Emphasized that narcotics quantity and indispensability of a courier’s role can strongly cut against a minor-role finding.
    • Relevance: Anchored the panel’s affirmance of the denial of a minor-role reduction to Marmolejos, who piloted a drug-laden vessel and stood to receive substantial payment.
  • United States v. Valois, 915 F.3d 717 (11th Cir. 2019) and United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182 (11th Cir. 2016):
    • Holdings: Addressed standards and applications of § 3B1.2 and clear-error review in maritime smuggling cases, reinforcing the deferential posture on appeal and the fact-intensive nature of role assessments.
    • Relevance: Supported the deferential review and the conclusion that not every crew member qualifies as “minor,” especially where each plays a necessary role.
  • United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2008):
    • Holding: The prior-panel-precedent rule binds later panels unless overruled by the Supreme Court or the Eleventh Circuit sitting en banc.
    • Relevance: The panel emphasized that Alfonso, Canario-Vilomar, and Campbell foreclosed defendants’ constitutional challenges; as a later panel, it was bound to follow them.

Legal Reasoning

The panel resolved the case by straightforward application of binding Eleventh Circuit precedent to the undisputed facts:

  • Felonies Clause and the High Seas:
    • Constitutional anchor: The Felonies Clause authorizes Congress “[t]o define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas.”
    • Application: Alfonso controls that a foreign state’s EEZ is part of the “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes. The defendants’ assertion that EEZs must be treated as something less than “high seas,” based on customary international law, failed because Alfonso squarely rejected the premise that customary international law limits Congress’s power under the Clause.
  • Stateless Vessels and § 70502(d)(1)(C):
    • Statutory mechanism: A “vessel without nationality” includes “a vessel aboard which the master or individual in charge makes a claim of registry and for which the claimed nation of registry does not affirmatively and unequivocally assert that the vessel is of its nationality.”
    • Application: After Mendez claimed Dominican nationality for the boat, the Dominican Republic could neither confirm nor deny registry. Under § 70502(d)(1)(C), that non-verification rendered the boat stateless and, thus, “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” for MDLEA purposes. Canario-Vilomar forecloses any argument that international law forbids Congress from using such a definition.
  • Due Process and Nexus:
    • Rule: Campbell holds that no U.S. nexus is required in prosecuting drug trafficking on a stateless vessel on the high seas; due process is satisfied because the MDLEA provides clear notice that such conduct is universally condemned.
    • Application: Because the vessel was stateless and in high seas (EEZ) waters, the nexus challenge failed as a matter of binding precedent.
  • Minor-Role Reduction:
    • Framework: Under De Varon, courts assess (1) the defendant’s role in the relevant conduct for which he is held accountable, and (2) how his role compares to other participants in that relevant conduct. Factors from U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C) guide the analysis (understanding of scope, planning/organizing, decision-making authority, nature and extent of acts, benefit expected).
    • Facts applied: Marmolejos helped pilot a vessel carrying 226 kilograms of cocaine from Colombia to the Dominican Republic and stood to be paid $30,000—a substantial sum. The district court found his function critical to the operation, even if he did not own the drugs or organize the broader scheme.
    • Appellate review: Clear-error review is deferential. The panel emphasized that even if other participants (e.g., Mendez as “captain,” or Vasquez as the drugs’ custodian) might be more culpable in some respects, it is “possible that none are minor participants,” and the district court’s choice among “two permissible views” will “rarely” be clear error. The panel also noted that the relevant conduct was limited to the specific 226-kilogram smuggling trip, not any broader Colombian-Dominican conspiracy. On that record, denying the reduction was not clearly erroneous.

Impact

Although unpublished, this decision underlines several settled and recently reaffirmed principles that will shape MDLEA litigation in the Eleventh Circuit:

  • Continued vitality of the post-2024 MDLEA framework:
    • Foreign EEZs are treated as “high seas” for constitutional purposes, expanding the geographic reach for interdictions outside territorial seas without implicating Offences Clause concerns tied to foreign territorial waters.
    • “Neither confirm nor deny” responses from claimed flag states will continue to supply a statelessness determination under § 70502(d)(1)(C), enabling U.S. jurisdiction.
    • No nexus is required for stateless vessel prosecutions, blunting due process challenges by foreign nationals whose conduct and intended destination have no U.S. link.
  • Coast Guard and prosecutorial practice:
    • The Coast Guard’s flag-verification protocol—promptly contacting the claimed flag state and treating a non-verification as statelessness—is validated, supporting swift interdiction decisions in fast-moving maritime contexts.
    • Prosecutors in the Eleventh Circuit can anticipate—and cite—Alfonso, Canario-Vilomar, and Campbell to dispose of EEZ/customary-international-law, statelessness, and nexus/due process challenges at the motion-to-dismiss stage even after a guilty plea.
  • Sentencing dynamics for couriers:
    • Despite the 2015 amendments to § 3B1.2 encouraging consideration of low-level roles, Eleventh Circuit courts remain reluctant to grant minor-role reductions where the defendant’s conduct is indispensable to transporting large quantities of narcotics. Piloting the boat and the magnitude of drugs and payout remain powerful counterweights.
    • Defense counsel will need robust, record-based showings—addressing each § 3B1.2 factor—to overcome De Varon’s two-step analysis, especially in maritime cases.
  • Appellate posture:
    • The opinion reiterates that a guilty plea does not bar constitutional challenges to the statute of conviction, but those challenges will be summarily resolved when squarely foreclosed by prior panel decisions.
    • Role adjustments are reviewed for clear error, and failure to reassert objections at final sentencing can risk more stringent preservation standards—though the panel declined to resolve that preservation question here because the result would be the same.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Felonies Clause:
    • A constitutional provision letting Congress define and punish crimes “on the high seas.” Here, it supports the MDLEA’s extraterritorial reach.
  • Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ):
    • An area up to 200 nautical miles from a coastal state’s baseline. The coastal state has resource rights there, but the waters remain international for navigational and many enforcement purposes. In the Eleventh Circuit, EEZs count as “high seas” for Felonies Clause analysis.
  • Vessel without nationality (Stateless vessel):
    • A ship not validly registered to any country. Under MDLEA § 70502(d)(1)(C), a vessel becomes “stateless” if the claimed flag state does not “affirmatively and unequivocally” confirm its nationality when asked.
  • Nexus:
    • A connection between the offense and the United States. Under Eleventh Circuit law, no nexus is needed for drug cases on stateless vessels on the high seas.
  • Minor-role reduction (U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2):
    • A 2-level decrease for a defendant who is less culpable than most participants but not minimally involved. Courts compare the defendant’s role to the specific conduct he’s being sentenced for, and to his co-participants in that conduct, considering understanding, planning, decision-making, acts performed, and expected benefit.
  • Clear-error review:
    • A deferential appellate standard used for fact-heavy issues like role adjustments. The appellate court will not disturb the district court’s decision unless firmly convinced a mistake occurred.
  • Unpublished, per curiam decisions:
    • Short opinions issued in the name of the court rather than a specific judge; in the Eleventh Circuit, they are not binding precedent but can be persuasive, especially where they faithfully apply controlling published decisions.

Conclusion

United States v. Vasquez confirms the Eleventh Circuit’s now-settled approach to MDLEA prosecutions post-Alfonso and Canario-Vilomar. In the Circuit, foreign EEZ waters are “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes; Congress’s statutory choice to treat non-verified claims of nationality as statelessness is valid; and no nexus to the United States is required for stateless-vessel drug prosecutions. On sentencing, the court reaffirmed the enduring force of De Varon: where a defendant pilots a vessel carrying a very large quantity of narcotics and expects a substantial payoff, a minor-role reduction will be difficult to obtain, particularly when the role is indispensable to the immediate smuggling venture.

The opinion’s practical message is clear. Defense challenges to MDLEA jurisdiction premised on EEZ location, customary international law, or nexus are foreclosed in the Eleventh Circuit. In the sentencing arena, defendants seeking role reductions must present compelling evidence under the § 3B1.2 factors and confront the reality that quantity, indispensability, and expected benefit remain potent considerations. For interdictions in the Caribbean and adjacent waters, this decision—though unpublished—adds another consistent application of the Circuit’s controlling authorities, offering predictability to Coast Guard operations and to MDLEA prosecutions alike.

Case Details

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

Comments