EEZ as “High Seas,” Validity of “Neither Confirm Nor Deny” Statelessness, and No Nexus Requirement Under the MDLEA: Eleventh Circuit Reaffirms Foundational Limits on Constitutional Challenges

Introduction

In United States v. Willi Ariel Mendez; United States v. Jose Felix Vasquez; and United States v. Adalberto Marmolejos, consolidated appeals from the Southern District of Florida, the Eleventh Circuit (per curiam, not for publication) affirmed the MDLEA convictions of three defendants apprehended by the U.S. Coast Guard approximately 95 nautical miles off Aruba, as well as the sentence of one appellant (Marmolejos). The case sits at the intersection of maritime drug interdiction and constitutional limits on Congress’s extraterritorial criminal authority.

The core issues were constitutional attacks on the MDLEA’s application: (1) whether waters within another nation’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) are “the high seas” for purposes of Congress’s Felonies Clause power; (2) whether Congress may, consistent with the Felonies Clause and customary international law, deem a vessel “without nationality” where the claimed flag state neither confirms nor denies nationality; and (3) whether due process requires a nexus between the offense and the United States. Separately, Marmolejos challenged the district court’s refusal to reduce his offense level for a minor role under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.

The Eleventh Circuit held that each constitutional challenge was foreclosed by binding circuit precedent, and it found no clear error in the denial of a minor-role reduction. Although unpublished, the opinion consolidates and applies recent and longstanding Eleventh Circuit authority that now firmly structures MDLEA litigation in the circuit.

Summary of the Opinion

The Coast Guard intercepted a go-fast vessel without indicia of nationality. Its occupants jettisoned bales later recovered as 226 kilograms of cocaine. After boarding, the master claimed Dominican nationality, but the Dominican Republic could neither confirm nor deny the claim. Under 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(C), the Coast Guard treated the craft as a “vessel without nationality,” and the case proceeded under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA).

The defendants pled guilty to MDLEA conspiracy and later moved to dismiss the indictment for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on constitutional grounds. The district court denied their motions and imposed 75-month sentences; Marmolejos appealed both his conviction and sentence.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit:

Rejected all constitutional challenges as foreclosed by existing Eleventh Circuit precedent:
- EEZ waters count as the “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes (United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024)).
- Congress may treat a vessel as stateless where the claimed flag state neither confirms nor denies registry (United States v. Canario‑Vilomar, 128 F.4th 1374 (11th Cir. 2025)).
- No due-process nexus to the United States is required for stateless-vessel interdictions on the high seas (United States v. Campbell, 743 F.3d 802 (11th Cir. 2014)).
Affirmed the denial of a minor-role reduction for Marmolejos, emphasizing the centrality of his conduct in transporting 226 kilograms of cocaine, the significant payment promised, and the critical nature of his boat-driving role (applying United States v. Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc)).

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The panel’s analysis rests squarely on a trilogy that now defines MDLEA constitutional litigation in the Eleventh Circuit:

United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024):
Alfonso expressly held that other nations’ EEZs are part of the “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes, rejecting the argument that Congress’s Felonies Clause power is limited by customary international law. Alfonso recognized that the EEZ is a modern concept not extant at the founding, and emphasized that the EEZ is beyond a coastal state’s territorial sea, preserving high-seas freedoms. Here, the appellants’ EEZ-based challenge was controlled by Alfonso; the waters roughly 95 nautical miles off Aruba fell within a foreign EEZ, but that did not circumscribe Congress’s Felonies Clause authority or MDLEA enforcement.
United States v. Canario‑Vilomar, 128 F.4th 1374 (11th Cir. 2025):
Canario‑Vilomar held that Congress may, under the Felonies Clause, define “vessel without nationality” to include crafts for which the claimed flag state neither confirms nor denies registry, codified in § 70502(d)(1)(C). The court rejected the argument that international law limits Congress’s definitional choices for MDLEA jurisdictional triggers. In this case, the Dominican Republic’s inability to verify nationality brought the vessel within the MDLEA definition, foreclosing the appellants’ second challenge.
United States v. Campbell, 743 F.3d 802 (11th Cir. 2014):
Campbell established that prosecutions of noncitizens on stateless vessels on the high seas require no nexus to the United States under the Due Process Clause. The MDLEA provides constitutionally sufficient notice because drug trafficking on stateless vessels is universally condemned, and Congress may extend U.S. criminal jurisdiction to such vessels on the high seas. The appellants’ nexus/due-process arguments fall directly under Campbell and its progeny, including Canario‑Vilomar.

For sentencing, the court relied on:

United States v. Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc), and United States v. Valois, 915 F.3d 717 (11th Cir. 2019):
De Varon’s two-step framework governs minor-role determinations: (1) assess the defendant’s role in the relevant conduct for which he is accountable; and (2) compare his role to other participants in that same relevant conduct. De Varon also recognizes that transporting a large drug quantity can itself indicate non-minor status when the courier’s role is central. Valois illustrates that, in maritime smuggling cases, none of the crew may qualify for a role reduction. Applying those principles, the panel found no clear error in denying a minor-role adjustment to a driver entrusted with 226 kilograms of cocaine and a promised $30,000 share.
United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182 (11th Cir. 2016), and United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2008):
Cruickshank reiterates the deferential clear-error standard for role findings; Archer states the prior panel precedent rule, which bound the panel to Alfonso, Canario‑Vilomar, and Campbell absent en banc or Supreme Court abrogation.

Legal Reasoning

The opinion proceeds by identifying the governing law and applying it in a straightforward, precedent-driven manner.

EEZ is “High Seas” for Felonies Clause:
The court treated as dispositive Alfonso’s holding that other nations’ EEZs remain “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes. Because the Felonies Clause authorizes Congress to punish felonies “committed on the high Seas,” and because § 70503(b) expressly applies the MDLEA extraterritorially, enforcement within a foreign EEZ is constitutional. Arguments invoking customary international law to narrow the Clause are rejected as incompatible with Alfonso.
“Neither Confirm Nor Deny” Statelessness:
Under § 70502(d)(1)(C), a vessel is “without nationality” if a claim of registry is not “affirmatively and unequivocally” verified by the claimed state. Canario‑Vilomar resolves the constitutional question: Congress’s definitional choice lies within its Felonies Clause authority and is not curtailed by international law. The Dominican Republic’s inability to verify the claim therefore triggered MDLEA jurisdiction over a stateless vessel, validating the Coast Guard’s treatment and the prosecution.
No Due‑Process Nexus Requirement:
Campbell controls: stateless vessels on the high seas do not require a nexus to the United States for MDLEA prosecutions. Due process is satisfied by the universal condemnation of drug trafficking on stateless vessels and the statute’s clear extraterritorial reach. The appellants’ nexus-based constitutional claim was thus foreclosed.
Sentencing—Minor‑Role Denial:
Applying De Varon’s two-step test and commentary to § 3B1.2, the panel affirmed the district court’s conclusion that Marmolejos’s role was not minor. Key facts included (i) the large drug quantity (226 kilograms); (ii) his central function as a driver; and (iii) a substantial expected payment ($30,000). The court also emphasized that, in comparing culpability among co-participants in the relevant conduct (the specific load aboard the vessel), it is possible that none are minor participants. The district court’s choice between permissible views of the record was not clearly erroneous.

Impact

Although unpublished and thus non-precedential in the Eleventh Circuit, this decision is practically significant. It consolidates and applies three pillars—Alfonso, Canario‑Vilomar, and Campbell—that now define the terrain for MDLEA constitutional litigation in the circuit:

EEZ Enforcement Settled: The Eleventh Circuit treats foreign EEZ waters as “high seas” under the Felonies Clause, foreclosing EEZ-based challenges to MDLEA prosecutions. Interdictions within 200 nautical miles of foreign coasts remain within Congress’s reach where the vessel is stateless or otherwise subject to § 70502.
Statelessness via Non-Verification Upheld: The “neither confirm nor deny” pathway to statelessness under § 70502(d)(1)(C) is constitutionally sound. Practically, Coast Guard reliance on non-verification responses from claimed flag states will continue to support MDLEA jurisdiction.
No Nexus Requirement: Defendants apprehended on stateless vessels on the high seas cannot demand a U.S. nexus as a due-process prerequisite. This significantly reduces the avenues for constitutional defense in the Eleventh Circuit.
Sentencing Guidance for Maritime Couriers: In maritime smuggling cases, where the load is large and the defendant’s role (e.g., piloting) is central, minor-role reductions remain difficult to secure. De Varon’s focus on relevant conduct aboard the vessel, and the acceptance that none of the crew may be minor participants, continues to shape outcomes.
Stability Through Prior Panel Precedent: The court’s reliance on Archer underscores that only en banc or Supreme Court decisions will unsettle Alfonso, Canario‑Vilomar, and Campbell. Defense strategies premised on customary international law constraints or nexus requirements will face steep headwinds absent higher-court intervention.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Felonies Clause vs. “High Seas”: The U.S. Constitution grants Congress power to “define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas.” The Eleventh Circuit equates foreign EEZ waters with the “high seas” for this purpose because they lie beyond territorial seas, preserving high-seas freedoms.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): A belt of sea up to 200 nautical miles from a coastal baseline where the coastal state has resource rights, not full sovereignty. Vessels transiting the EEZ remain on the high seas for navigation and law-enforcement authority purposes as interpreted by the Eleventh Circuit’s Felonies Clause jurisprudence.
MDLEA’s “Vessel Without Nationality”: A vessel is stateless if, among other categories, the master’s nationality claim is not affirmatively and unequivocally verified by the claimed nation (§ 70502(d)(1)(C)). The Eleventh Circuit has held Congress may adopt this definition without being constrained by customary international law.
No “Nexus” Requirement: When the vessel is stateless and on the high seas, due process does not require a connection to the United States. The MDLEA provides clear notice, and drug trafficking on stateless vessels is universally condemned.
Minor-Role Reduction (U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2): To get a two-level decrease as a “minor participant,” a defendant must prove he is less culpable than most other participants in the relevant conduct. Courts consider understanding of the scheme, planning/organization, decision-making authority, nature/extent of participation, and expected benefit. Transporting large quantities and serving as a pilot often weigh against a reduction.
Standards of Review: Constitutional and jurisdictional questions are reviewed de novo. Role-in-the-offense findings are reviewed for clear error, a deferential standard that upholds the district court’s plausible view of the record.
Prior Panel Precedent Rule: A published Eleventh Circuit decision binds subsequent panels unless overruled by the Eleventh Circuit sitting en banc or the Supreme Court. Unpublished decisions (like this one) are not binding, but they apply and reflect binding law.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision affirms, in a single application-focused opinion, the prevailing framework governing MDLEA cases in the circuit:

Foreign EEZ waters are “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes.
Congress’s statutory definition of “vessel without nationality” includes the “neither confirm nor deny” scenario, and international law does not limit that definition.
No nexus to the United States is required to prosecute drug trafficking aboard stateless vessels on the high seas consistent with due process.
Minor-role reductions in maritime courier cases involving large quantities and central operational roles will remain difficult to obtain under De Varon.

While unpublished, the opinion faithfully follows and reinforces the Eleventh Circuit’s published precedents—Alfonso, Canario‑Vilomar, and Campbell—leaving little room for constitutional defenses premised on EEZ location, customary international law constraints, or nexus arguments in MDLEA prosecutions of stateless vessels. For sentencing, it reiterates that the De Varon framework, applied to the concrete facts of large-scale maritime smuggling, often sustains denials of minor-role adjustments where the defendant’s participation is indispensable to the transport of substantial drug loads.