EEZ-as-High-Seas, No-Nexus Requirement, and a Narrow Minor-Role Inquiry Under the MDLEA: Commentary on United States v. Quijije‑Mero (11th Cir. 2025)

EEZ-as-High-Seas, No-Nexus Requirement, and a Narrow Minor-Role Inquiry Under the MDLEA: Commentary on United States v. Quijije‑Mero (11th Cir. 2025)

Introduction

In United States v. Jhon Yandry Quijije‑Mero (consolidated with appeals by Lauro Aguilar‑Gomez, Jose Lopez‑Anchundia, Arturo Gil‑Zarco, Juan Torres‑Hernandez, and Jhon Alvarado‑Valencia), the Eleventh Circuit (per curiam, non‑argument calendar; not for publication) affirmed convictions and sentences under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) arising from a Coast Guard interdiction of a stateless go‑fast vessel in Mexico’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The case squarely presented three recurrent MDLEA issues:

  • Whether Congress’s Felonies Clause power extends the MDLEA into a foreign nation’s EEZ (as opposed to the “high seas” narrowly understood);
  • Whether due process or the Felonies Clause requires a “nexus” between the offense and the United States; and
  • Whether crew members engaged in maritime transport of drugs are entitled to a minor‑role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 based on their courier status relative to higher‑level conspirators.

The panel’s answer to all three questions—guided by binding Eleventh Circuit precedent—is an emphatic affirmation of MDLEA prosecutions in foreign EEZs without any nexus requirement and a reiteration that minor‑role determinations focus on the defendant’s role in the “relevant conduct,” not in the broader international conspiracy. The opinion consolidates and applies prior holdings like United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024), and United States v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc), to a vivid interdiction scenario: a stateless go‑fast boat that jettisoned 28 bales (≈ 1,121 kg) of cocaine before being disabled by Coast Guard helicopter fire within Mexico’s EEZ.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed all convictions and sentences:

  • As‑applied constitutional challenge (Felonies Clause/EEZ): Rejected as foreclosed by circuit precedent. The court held that, under Alfonso and Canario‑Vilomar, the Felonies Clause permits Congress to reach conduct in a foreign EEZ; for constitutional purposes, an EEZ is treated as part of the “high seas,” and international law does not limit Congress’s authority when enacting the MDLEA.
  • Due process/nexus challenge: Rejected as foreclosed by longstanding Eleventh Circuit law. The MDLEA does not require a U.S. nexus, and prosecuting stateless‑vessel drug trafficking on the high seas does not violate due process because the conduct is universally condemned and clearly proscribed.
  • Sentencing—minor‑role reduction: The district court did not clearly err in denying minor‑role reductions to four defendants. The court properly compared each defendant to the relevant conduct for which he was held accountable (transporting ≈ 1,121 kg of cocaine on a stateless go‑fast) and, as appropriate, to co‑participants in that relevant conduct—not to upstream suppliers, recruiters, or downstream distributors in the larger conspiracy.

Below‑Guidelines sentences were imposed: 75 months for five defendants (including four who sought minor‑role reductions) and 85 months for the vessel operator (who did not seek minor‑role relief).

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The panel’s analysis rests on an established line of Eleventh Circuit authority:

  • EEZ as “high seas” under the Felonies Clause; international law not limiting Congress:
    • United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815, 823, 826–27 (11th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 2025 WL 1426696 (May 19, 2025): holds that the Felonies Clause is not constrained by international law and that a foreign EEZ is treated as part of the “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes.
    • United States v. Canario‑Vilomar, 128 F.4th 1374, 1381–82 (11th Cir. 2025): reaffirms Alfonso and rejects attempts to carve EEZ conduct out of the MDLEA’s reach.
    • United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008) (prior‑panel‑precedent rule), and United States v. Lee, 886 F.3d 1161, 1163 n.3 (11th Cir. 2018): bind later panels to prior panel holdings absent en banc or Supreme Court abrogation.
  • No nexus requirement; due process satisfied:
    • United States v. Cabezas‑Montano, 949 F.3d 567, 587 (11th Cir. 2020) (collecting cases); United States v. Hernandez, 864 F.3d 1292, 1303 (11th Cir. 2017); United States v. Campbell, 743 F.3d 802, 810–12 (11th Cir. 2014); United States v. Rendon, 354 F.3d 1320, 1325 (11th Cir. 2003): no nexus requirement under the MDLEA; due process is not violated when prosecuting aliens captured on the high seas for stateless‑vessel drug trafficking because the prohibition is clear and universally condemned.
  • Minor‑role (U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2) framework:
    • United States v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc): establishes two core principles—(1) compare the defendant to the relevant conduct for which he is accountable; (2) compare him to other participants only within that relevant conduct. The focus is not the entire conspiracy, but the conduct captured by the guideline accountability.
    • United States v. Valois, 915 F.3d 717, 731–32 (11th Cir. 2019): confirms the totality‑of‑circumstances analysis and that the court must consider all listed § 3B1.2 factors to the extent applicable.
    • United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182, 1192–95 (11th Cir. 2016), and United States v. Boyd, 291 F.3d 1274, 1277–78 (11th Cir. 2002): emphasize deferential clear‑error review and the district court’s comparative vantage to assess role‑in‑the‑offense.
    • United States v. Dupree, 57 F.4th 1269 (11th Cir. 2023) (en banc), and United States v. Jews, 74 F.4th 1325, 1327 & n.2, 1328 (11th Cir. 2023): explain limits on deference to guideline commentary; yet, where parties do not contest the commentary’s validity, courts may rely on it. The panel noted both sides relied on the § 3B1.2 commentary and therefore used it.

Legal Reasoning

1) MDLEA jurisdiction in a foreign EEZ (as‑applied constitutional challenge)

The panel applied the MDLEA’s jurisdictional framework to a stateless vessel interdicted in Mexico’s EEZ:

  • Statelessness: The vessel lacked indicia of nationality, and the master declined to make a claim of nationality, satisfying 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(B). A stateless vessel is a “vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” 46 U.S.C. § 70502(c)(1)(A).
  • Extraterritorial reach: The MDLEA applies “even though the act is committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” 46 U.S.C. § 70503(b).
  • Felonies Clause power in an EEZ: Under Alfonso and Canario‑Vilomar, an EEZ is treated as “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes, and international law does not constrain Congress’s power to define and punish felonies there via the MDLEA. The panel invoked the Eleventh Circuit’s prior‑panel‑precedent rule to reject the appellants’ invitation to revisit this constitutional holding.

2) Due process and “nexus” to the United States

The Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly held that the MDLEA requires no U.S. nexus and that prosecuting stateless‑vessel drug traffickers captured beyond U.S. territory does not offend due process:

  • No nexus requirement: The panel followed Cabezas‑Montano, Hernandez, Campbell, and Rendon in holding that the statute does not include (and courts should not add) a nexus requirement.
  • Due process satisfied: Because the MDLEA clearly prohibits drug trafficking aboard stateless vessels on the high seas, and because such conduct is universally condemned, defendants had fair notice that their conduct was unlawful and subject to prosecution.

3) Minor‑role reductions under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2

Four appellants argued they were mere couriers and less culpable than unseen organizers, manufacturers, and distributors. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of § 3B1.2(b) reductions:

  • Governing test: Under De Varon and Valois, the inquiry is fact‑intensive and focuses on the defendant’s role in the “relevant conduct” for which he is held accountable, with a comparison to co‑participants only within that same relevant conduct—not to higher‑ups in the broader conspiracy.
  • Facts driving the denial: Each defendant knowingly helped transport approximately 1,121 kg of cocaine on a stateless go‑fast, was integral to the maritime transport phase, stood to benefit financially (e.g., promised payment), and (in at least one instance) actively jettisoned bales during flight from the Coast Guard. All were held accountable for the same drug quantity.
  • Totality of circumstances considered: The district court did not rely on a single factor; it considered the § 3B1.2 factors and the parties’ arguments. Given clear‑error review and the court’s superior vantage point, the panel found no definite and firm conviction of mistake.
  • Commentary after Dupree: Although Dupree cautions against automatic deference to commentary, the parties did not contest § 3B1.2 commentary’s validity here, and the court (consistent with Jews) properly used it.

Impact

The decision’s practical and doctrinal consequences are significant, even in an unpublished opinion:

  • Operational certainty in foreign EEZs: For the Eleventh Circuit, interdictions in another nation’s EEZ remain within MDLEA reach when the vessel is stateless or otherwise fits § 70502(c). The Coast Guard and prosecutors can rely on Alfonso and its progeny to rebut Felonies Clause and international‑law limits arguments.
  • No nexus arguments remain non‑starters: Defense claims that due process or the Felonies Clause demands a U.S. nexus are foreclosed in this circuit. This simplifies litigation and preserves government resources in MDLEA prosecutions.
  • Sentencing strategy in maritime drug cases: Defendants seeking minor‑role relief must tailor their arguments to their “relevant conduct,” not to the broader supply chain. Courier status, small promised payments, or lack of ownership/command will not, without more, compel a reduction when the defendant knowingly helps move a very large load and performs essential tasks.
  • Guidelines practice post‑Dupree: The panel’s reliance on § 3B1.2 commentary because no party challenged it underscores a tactical point: to preserve a Dupree-type argument, counsel must actually contest the commentary’s validity or applicability. Silence will permit courts to use commentary as persuasive guidance.
  • Persuasive weight beyond the Eleventh Circuit: Although unpublished and not binding precedent within the Eleventh Circuit, the opinion adds to a consistent body of persuasive authority nationwide sustaining MDLEA enforcement in EEZs and rejecting nexus‑based defenses.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): A band of sea up to 200 nautical miles from a coastal state’s baseline where the coastal state has special rights over natural resources, but the waters are not its “territorial sea.” Other states retain high‑seas freedoms like navigation. For Felonies Clause purposes in the Eleventh Circuit, EEZs are treated as “high seas.”
  • High Seas (constitutional sense): Waters beyond any nation’s territorial sea. The Eleventh Circuit interprets Congress’s Felonies Clause power to extend to EEZ waters.
  • Stateless Vessel: A vessel that lacks nationality, including when the master fails or refuses to claim nationality or registry. The MDLEA confers U.S. jurisdiction over stateless vessels. See 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(B), (c)(1)(A).
  • Felonies Clause: Article I, § 8, cl. 10 empowers Congress to “define and punish... Felonies committed on the high Seas.” The Eleventh Circuit reads this power broadly for MDLEA purposes, unconstrained by international law limits.
  • No Nexus Requirement: Under Eleventh Circuit precedent, the MDLEA does not require proof that the offense had a connection to the United States (e.g., intended destination, U.S. victims).
  • Minor‑Role Reduction (U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2): A 2‑level decrease for a defendant less culpable than most participants in the criminal activity. Courts assess the totality of circumstances, focusing on the defendant’s role in the “relevant conduct” for which he is accountable, not the entire conspiracy.
  • Clear‑Error Review: Appellate courts overturn a district court’s fact‑finding (like role‑in‑the‑offense) only if left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake occurred—a highly deferential standard.
  • Prior‑Panel‑Precedent Rule: A later Eleventh Circuit panel must follow the holding of an earlier panel unless overruled en banc or by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion

United States v. Quijije‑Mero firmly applies—and thereby reinforces—three pillars of Eleventh Circuit MDLEA jurisprudence:

  • EEZ‑as‑High‑Seas under the Felonies Clause: Congress can regulate stateless‑vessel drug trafficking in foreign EEZs through the MDLEA; international law limits do not curb this constitutional authority.
  • No Nexus Requirement: Due process and the Felonies Clause do not demand any connection between the offense and the United States for MDLEA prosecutions of stateless vessels on the high seas.
  • Constrained Minor‑Role Relief: The minor‑role inquiry focuses on the defendant’s role in the specific relevant conduct of conviction. Mere courier status, without more, will often be insufficient—especially where defendants knowingly transport very large quantities of narcotics and perform essential functions within the maritime leg of the scheme.

Though unpublished, the opinion is a practical roadmap for future MDLEA cases in the Eleventh Circuit: interdictions in foreign EEZs remain squarely within the statute; nexus defenses are foreclosed; and sentencing relief based on minor role requires a granular showing tied to the defendant’s accountable conduct, not the broader transnational conspiracy. The result is continuity and predictability for maritime interdiction operations and MDLEA prosecutions in one of the nation’s busiest maritime jurisdictions.

Case Details

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

Comments