EEZ as “High Seas,” No U.S. Nexus Required, and Narrow Minor‑Role Relief for Go‑Fast Crews: Eleventh Circuit’s Consolidated MDLEA Ruling in United States v. Jhon Henry Alvarado‑Valencia (and Codefendants)

EEZ as “High Seas,” No U.S. Nexus Required, and Narrow Minor‑Role Relief for Go‑Fast Crews: Eleventh Circuit’s Consolidated MDLEA Ruling in United States v. Jhon Henry Alvarado‑Valencia (and Codefendants)

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Non‑Argument Calendar, Per Curiam; Judges Branch, Lagoa, and Wilson) | Date: September 3, 2025 | Disposition: Convictions and sentences affirmed (unpublished)

Introduction

This consolidated appeal arises from a U.S. Coast Guard interdiction of a stateless “go‑fast” vessel carrying approximately 1,121 kilograms of cocaine in the waters of Mexico’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Six Ecuadorian and Mexican nationals—Jhon Yandry Quijije‑Mero, Lauro Aguilar‑Gomez, Jose Fernando Lopez‑Anchundia, Arturo Yonhatan Gil‑Zarco, Juan Manuel Torres‑Hernandez, and Jhon Henry Alvarado‑Valencia—pled guilty to conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503, 70506, and 21 U.S.C. § 960.

On appeal, the defendants advanced three principal arguments:

  • As‑applied constitutional challenge: The MDLEA purportedly cannot reach conduct in a foreign nation’s EEZ because, they argued, an EEZ is not the “high seas” within the meaning of the Constitution’s Felonies Clause.
  • Due process/nexus challenge: Their prosecution allegedly violated due process and exceeded Congress’s Felonies Clause authority because there was no U.S. nexus to the offense.
  • Sentencing challenge: Four defendants (Quijije‑Mero, Lopez‑Anchundia, Gil‑Zarco, and Alvarado‑Valencia) contended the district court clearly erred in denying a minor‑role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected each challenge, relying on settled circuit precedent and the deferential “clear error” standard for the role‑in‑offense determinations.

Summary of the Judgment

  • MDLEA reach in EEZs: The Court held the as‑applied constitutional challenge is foreclosed by United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024), and reaffirmed by United States v. Canario‑Vilomar, 128 F.4th 1374 (11th Cir. 2025). For Felonies Clause purposes, EEZs are treated as “high seas,” and international law does not constrain Congress’s power to legislate extraterritorially via the MDLEA.
  • No nexus requirement: The Court reaffirmed that neither the Felonies Clause nor the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause requires a U.S. nexus for MDLEA prosecutions involving stateless vessels on the high seas. See United States v. Cabezas‑Montano, 949 F.3d 567 (11th Cir. 2020); United States v. Campbell, 743 F.3d 802 (11th Cir. 2014); United States v. Rendon, 354 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2003).
  • Minor‑role reduction denied: Applying De Varon and Valois, the Court found no clear error in the district court’s denial of minor‑role reductions to four crew members. The proper comparison is to the defendant’s “relevant conduct” and co‑participants in that conduct—not to unknown upstream organizers or downstream distributors.
  • Sentences affirmed: The below‑Guidelines sentences—75 months for most defendants and 85 months for the vessel’s operator—were affirmed.

Factual and Procedural Background

The Coast Guard interdicted a go‑fast vessel in Mexico’s EEZ after an attempted stop, a chase, and helicopter warning and disabling fire. Crew members were seen jettisoning bales, and the vessel bore no indicia of nationality. The asserted “master,” Aguilar‑Gomez, declined to claim nationality or registry. The Coast Guard recovered 28 bales containing roughly 1,121 kg of cocaine.

A grand jury indicted the six defendants for conspiracy and substantive MDLEA offenses. The defendants jointly moved to dismiss, arguing (1) the EEZ location fell outside Congress’s Felonies Clause authority and (2) the prosecution lacked the constitutionally required U.S. nexus. The district court denied the motion. All defendants entered open guilty pleas. At sentencing, four defendants sought minor‑role reductions, which the district court denied after a multi‑factor analysis and detailed discussion. Below‑Guidelines sentences were imposed, and this appeal followed.

Analysis

1) Precedents Cited and Their Influence

  • EEZ as “high seas” and the Felonies Clause:
    • United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 2025 WL 1426696 (May 19, 2025): Held that international law does not limit the Felonies Clause and that EEZs are part of the “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes. This squarely forecloses as‑applied EEZ challenges to MDLEA prosecutions.
    • United States v. Canario‑Vilomar, 128 F.4th 1374 (11th Cir. 2025): Reaffirmed Alfonso and rejected arguments that the MDLEA could not reach conduct in an EEZ.
    • United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2008): Prior‑panel‑precedent rule—later panels are bound unless overruled by the Supreme Court or en banc. The appellants expressly conceded their argument was foreclosed but preserved it for further review.
    • United States v. Lee, 886 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2018): A belief that a prior case was wrongly decided cannot overcome the prior‑panel‑precedent rule.
  • No nexus requirement and due process:
    • United States v. Cabezas‑Montano, 949 F.3d 567 (11th Cir. 2020): Confirmed that the MDLEA is valid without a U.S. nexus and that due process is not offended because drug trafficking on stateless vessels on the high seas is universally condemned and the MDLEA provides clear notice.
    • United States v. Campbell, 743 F.3d 802 (11th Cir. 2014); United States v. Hernandez, 864 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2017); United States v. Rendon, 354 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2003): A long line of Eleventh Circuit cases rejects any nexus requirement for MDLEA prosecutions of stateless vessels.
  • Minor‑role reductions:
    • United States v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc): Established the controlling two‑part framework: compare the defendant’s role (1) to the relevant conduct for which he is held accountable, and (2) to other identifiable participants in that same conduct. Emphasizes case‑specific, fact‑intensive analysis under a clear‑error standard.
    • United States v. Valois, 915 F.3d 717 (11th Cir. 2019): Reiterates that minor‑role decisions must consider all applicable § 3B1.2 commentary factors and cannot rest on a single factor.
    • United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182 (11th Cir. 2016); United States v. Boyd, 291 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2002): Clarify the deferential clear‑error review and the district court’s “considerable discretion.”
    • United States v. Dupree, 57 F.4th 1269 (11th Cir. 2023) (en banc): Limits deference to Guidelines commentary when the guideline text is unambiguous. Here, however, both parties relied on the § 3B1.2 commentary, and the panel did as well, consistent with United States v. Jews, 74 F.4th 1325 (11th Cir. 2023).

2) The Court’s Legal Reasoning

A. MDLEA authority in a foreign EEZ

The appellants argued that Mexico’s EEZ is not part of the “high seas,” and therefore Congress lacked authority under the Felonies Clause (Art. I, § 8, cl. 10) to criminalize their conduct. The panel rejected the claim as foreclosed by Alfonso and Canario‑Vilomar, which hold that:

  • International law does not limit the Felonies Clause.
  • For Felonies Clause purposes, EEZs are treated as “high seas.”

Because prior‑panel precedent bound the panel, the as‑applied constitutional challenge failed.

B. Due Process and the alleged “nexus” requirement

The Court reaffirmed that neither due process nor the Felonies Clause imposes a U.S. nexus requirement for MDLEA prosecutions involving stateless vessels on the high seas. Under Cabezas‑Montano and related cases, the MDLEA provides fair notice and reflects universal condemnation of maritime drug trafficking aboard stateless vessels, satisfying due process even absent a specific connection to the United States.

C. Sentencing: Minor‑role reductions under § 3B1.2

Four defendants sought a two‑level minor‑role reduction, characterizing themselves as mere couriers with limited knowledge and authority. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial, emphasizing these principles:

  • Comparison set: Under De Varon and Valois, the court compares each defendant to (i) the relevant conduct for which he is accountable and (ii) co‑participants in that same relevant conduct—not to unknown organizers, drug producers, owners, or street‑level distributors in a larger conspiracy.
  • Totality of circumstances: The district court considered the factors in § 3B1.2’s commentary, including knowledge of the scope/structure, planning, decision‑making authority, the nature/extent of participation, and the expected benefit. The record showed each defendant knowingly helped transport a very large quantity of cocaine, played a critical role in the transportation phase, expected payment (one record example: $1,000), and in at least one case actively jettisoned bales during pursuit.
  • Equal accountability: All four were held responsible for the same conduct and quantity. The fact that a defendant was not the captain or owner does not, standing alone, warrant a minor‑role reduction.
  • Deference on appeal: The clear‑error standard and the district court’s superior vantage point in weighing relative culpability meant the denials were well within the court’s discretion.

As to Aguilar‑Gomez, counsel did not request a minor‑role reduction below and asked only to benefit if co‑defendants prevailed on appeal. Because the others did not prevail, the Court did not reach his contingent request.

3) Impact and Implications

A. MDLEA Enforcement in the Eleventh Circuit

  • EEZ coverage reaffirmed: Interdictions in foreign EEZs remain fully prosecutable under the MDLEA in the Eleventh Circuit. This solidifies the operational authority of U.S. maritime enforcement to act against stateless drug‑running vessels well beyond any territorial sea.
  • No nexus required: Prosecutors need not prove a U.S. destination, U.S. ownership, or other connection in MDLEA cases involving stateless vessels on the high seas/EEZ. Defense nexus arguments remain foreclosed in this circuit.
  • Certiorari status: With the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Alfonso (May 2025), the Eleventh Circuit’s framework is stable for the foreseeable future.

B. Sentencing Strategy for Maritime Couriers

  • Minor‑role reductions are fact‑dependent and narrow: Simply being a non‑owner, non‑captain “courier” is not enough, especially when transporting multi‑hundred‑kilogram loads on a stateless vessel, and when held accountable for the entire quantity.
  • What may help (if present): Truly limited knowledge of the overall scheme; fleeting, replaceable involvement; no decision‑making authority; lack of discretion; de minimis benefit; and individualized facts showing a materially lesser role than co‑participants in the same relevant conduct.
  • Guidelines commentary posture: Although Dupree restricts deference to commentary when guideline text is clear, both sides relied on § 3B1.2 commentary here. Future litigants should be prepared to argue both the text and the commentary factors—and to develop a detailed factual record tailored to the De Varon/Valois framework.

C. Broader Legal Landscape

  • Unpublished but instructive: While not precedential, the decision is an application of binding Eleventh Circuit law (Alfonso, Canario‑Vilomar, Cabezas‑Montano, De Varon, etc.). It signals continued unwillingness to entertain EEZ and nexus attacks, and it underscores the demanding standards for minor‑role adjustments in maritime drug cases.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): A belt of sea up to 200 nautical miles from a country’s coast. The coastal state has special rights to resources, but the waters remain international for navigation and law enforcement by other states under various regimes. In the Eleventh Circuit’s view, the EEZ is treated as “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes.
  • Felonies Clause (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 10): Gives Congress power to define and punish felonies committed on the high seas. The Eleventh Circuit reads this power broadly and not limited by evolving international law definitions.
  • Stateless vessel: A boat without nationality—e.g., one whose master refuses or fails to claim a nationality or registry. Under the MDLEA, stateless vessels are “vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” enabling U.S. prosecution for drug offenses committed on board.
  • No “nexus” requirement: The Eleventh Circuit does not require proof that the drugs were destined for, or otherwise connected to, the United States when the MDLEA is applied to stateless vessels on the high seas.
  • Minor‑role reduction (U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2): A two‑level reduction for defendants who are less culpable than most other participants in the same criminal activity. Courts look at knowledge, planning, decision‑making, the nature/extent of acts, and expected benefit, comparing the defendant to co‑participants in the same relevant conduct.
  • Clear‑error review: An appellate court will defer to the district court’s fact findings unless left with a “definite and firm conviction” that a mistake occurred. This is a highly deferential standard.
  • Prior‑panel‑precedent rule: In the Eleventh Circuit, a panel must follow earlier panel decisions unless overruled by the Supreme Court or by the Eleventh Circuit sitting en banc.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in the consolidated United States v. Jhon Henry Alvarado‑Valencia appeals reinforces three durable pillars of MDLEA jurisprudence in the circuit:

  1. Congress’s Felonies Clause power reaches conduct in foreign EEZs for MDLEA purposes; international law does not constrain that constitutional grant in this context (Alfonso; Canario‑Vilomar).
  2. No U.S. nexus is required to prosecute drug trafficking aboard stateless vessels on the high seas/EEZ, and due process is satisfied by the MDLEA’s clear notice and universal condemnation of the conduct (Cabezas‑Montano; Campbell; Rendon).
  3. Minor‑role reductions remain tightly cabined in maritime courier cases: the correct comparison set is the defendant’s relevant conduct and co‑participants in that conduct; large loads, critical transport roles, and expected payment typically weigh against a reduction (De Varon; Valois).

Although unpublished, the ruling faithfully applies binding Eleventh Circuit precedent and offers practical guidance: EEZ and nexus defenses are non‑starters in this circuit; minor‑role relief requires a carefully developed, defendant‑specific record showing materially lesser culpability than co‑participants in the same transport operation. For prosecutors and the Coast Guard, the opinion confirms that interdictions of stateless go‑fast vessels in foreign EEZs remain fully actionable under the MDLEA. For defense counsel, it underscores the importance of granular sentencing submissions tailored to the De Varon/Valois factors if a minor‑role adjustment is to be plausibly earned.

Case Details

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

Comments