EEZ Equals “High Seas” for Felonies Clause: Eleventh Circuit Reaffirms MDLEA’s Extraterritorial Reach and No‑Nexus Rule; Minor‑Role Reductions Narrow for Go‑Fast Couriers

EEZ Equals “High Seas” for Felonies Clause: Eleventh Circuit Reaffirms MDLEA’s Extraterritorial Reach and No‑Nexus Rule; Minor‑Role Reductions Narrow for Go‑Fast Couriers

Introduction

In a consolidated set of appeals arising from a single maritime interdiction, the Eleventh Circuit (per curiam, non‑argument calendar) affirmed the convictions and sentences of six defendants prosecuted under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) after a U.S. Coast Guard stop of a stateless go‑fast vessel within Mexico’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The case is styled United States v. Jose Fernando Lopez‑Anchundia (consolidated with appeals by Jhon Yandry Quijije‑Mero, Lauro Aguilar‑Gomez, Arturo Yonhatan Gil‑Zarco, Juan Manuel Torres‑Hernandez, and Jhon Henry Alvarado‑Valencia), No. 24‑11838 et al., decided September 3, 2025.

The defendants raised three principal issues:

  • As‑applied constitutional challenge: whether Congress’s Felonies Clause power reaches conduct in a foreign nation’s EEZ—asserting the EEZ is not the “high seas.”
  • Due process/nexus challenge: whether MDLEA prosecutions require a U.S. nexus when the defendants and conduct have no specific connection to the United States.
  • Sentencing: whether four defendants were entitled to a minor‑role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.

The panel’s opinion does not purport to make new law; rather, it synthesizes and applies binding Eleventh Circuit precedents—most notably United States v. Alfonso—to reaffirm three now‑settled rules in this Circuit: (1) an EEZ is treated as part of the “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes and the MDLEA’s reach; (2) no U.S. nexus is required to prosecute stateless‑vessel drug trafficking under the MDLEA; and (3) maritime couriers on stateless go‑fast vessels face an exacting standard to secure a minor‑role reduction.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed across the board:

  • EEZ/Constitutionality: The as‑applied constitutional challenge failed under binding precedent. The MDLEA constitutionally applies to conduct in a foreign EEZ; international law does not limit Congress’s Felonies Clause authority in this context, and the EEZ is treated as the “high seas.”
  • Due process and nexus: The court rejected the argument that a nexus to the United States is constitutionally required for MDLEA prosecutions of stateless‑vessel drug trafficking.
  • Sentencing/minor‑role: For four defendants who sought a minor‑role reduction, the district court did not clearly err in denying it. The court emphasized comparison to the relevant conduct and the similarly‑situated codefendants on the same voyage, not to higher‑level, unknown conspirators. Each defendant knowingly participated in transporting 1,121 kilograms of cocaine and stood to be paid; the district court considered the totality of the circumstances and acted within its discretion.

Factual and Procedural Background

In 2023, the U.S. Coast Guard attempted to stop a go‑fast vessel in Mexico’s EEZ. The vessel bore no indicia of nationality and refused to heave to; a helicopter fired warning and disabling shots to end the flight. Crew members jettisoned bales during the pursuit; 28 bales were recovered, containing approximately 1,121 kilograms of cocaine. When boarded, defendant Lauro Aguilar‑Gomez identified himself as master but declined to claim nationality for the vessel.

A grand jury in the Southern District of Florida indicted the six defendants for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine while on board a vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction, in violation of 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a)(1), 70506(a)–(b), 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The defendants moved to dismiss on constitutional and nexus grounds; the district court denied the motion. All six pleaded guilty to both counts.

At sentencing, four defendants (Quijije‑Mero, Lopez‑Anchundia, Gil‑Zarco, and Alvarado‑Valencia) sought minor‑role reductions; the district court denied the requests and imposed below‑guidelines terms of 75 months (three years’ supervised release). Aguilar‑Gomez, the operator, received 85 months (three years’ supervised release) after declining to seek a minor‑role reduction. Torres‑Hernandez did not challenge sentencing on appeal.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

  • United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 2025:

    The linchpin. Alfonso holds that international law does not limit Congress’s Felonies Clause power and that a foreign nation’s EEZ is part of the “high seas” for Felonies Clause analysis. Thus, the MDLEA’s extraterritorial reach comfortably covers drug trafficking in an EEZ, especially on a stateless vessel. The panel treated Alfonso as controlling and dispositive of defendants’ EEZ‑based as‑applied challenge.

  • United States v. Canario‑Vilomar, 128 F.4th 1374 (11th Cir. 2025):

    Reaffirmed Alfonso by rejecting the argument that Congress cannot reach conduct in an EEZ; confirms Eleventh Circuit’s settled stance post‑Alfonso.

  • United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2008) (prior‑panel precedent rule):

    Establishes that a later panel is bound by a prior panel’s holding unless overruled by the Supreme Court or the Eleventh Circuit en banc. The panel invoked Archer to explain why it could not revisit Alfonso, even if the appellants thought it wrongly decided. See also United States v. Lee, 886 F.3d 1161, 1163 n.3 (11th Cir. 2018).

  • No‑Nexus Line of Cases:

    The panel relied on a robust Eleventh Circuit line holding that the MDLEA does not require proof of a U.S. nexus. Key cases include:

    • United States v. Cabezas‑Montano, 949 F.3d 567, 587 (11th Cir. 2020) (collecting cases; due process satisfied for stateless‑vessel trafficking; no nexus required)
    • 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)
  • Minor‑Role Jurisprudence:

    The panel applied the Eleventh Circuit’s established framework for § 3B1.2:

    • United States v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc): Two guiding principles—compare the defendant to (1) the relevant conduct for which he is held accountable, and (2) other participants in that relevant conduct. The focus is not the larger conspiracy.
    • United States v. Valois, 915 F.3d 717, 731–32 (11th Cir. 2019): The court must consider the totality of factors in comment n.3(C) to § 3B1.2 and cannot hinge its decision on a single factor.
    • United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182, 1192–95 (11th Cir. 2016): Clear‑error review is highly deferential; lists relevant considerations.
    • United States v. Boyd, 291 F.3d 1274, 1277–78 (11th Cir. 2002): Emphasizes district court discretion.
    • United States v. Dupree, 57 F.4th 1269 (11th Cir. 2023) (en banc), and United States v. Jews, 74 F.4th 1325 (11th Cir. 2023): Address deference to Guidelines commentary; here, both sides relied on commentary and did not challenge its validity, so the court applied it.

Legal Reasoning

1) Constitutional reach of the MDLEA in a foreign EEZ

The MDLEA criminalizes possessing with intent to distribute controlled substances on a “vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” including a “vessel without nationality.” A vessel is stateless if the person in charge fails to make a claim of nationality or registry. 46 U.S.C. §§ 70502(c)(1)(A), 70502(d)(1)(B), 70503(a)(1), (b).

The defendants argued that their interdiction within Mexico’s EEZ took the conduct outside Congress’s Felonies Clause power (“to define and punish Felonies committed on the high Seas”). The court rejected that argument as foreclosed by Alfonso and Canario‑Vilomar, which hold:

  • International law does not constrain Congress’s Felonies Clause authority in crafting the MDLEA.
  • An EEZ is treated as part of the “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes.

Because the vessel was stateless (no claim of nationality) and the interdiction occurred outside any nation’s territorial sea, the MDLEA applied by its terms, and the constitutional challenge failed under binding circuit law.

2) Due process and the absence of a U.S. nexus requirement

The defendants also contended the prosecution violated due process because their conduct lacked a nexus to the United States. The Eleventh Circuit again relied on settled authority: MDLEA prosecutions of drug trafficking on stateless vessels do not require a U.S. nexus. Due process is satisfied because the MDLEA provides clear notice that such conduct is universally condemned; stateless vessels on the high seas are subject to the jurisdiction of all nations. Accordingly, the district court correctly denied the motion to dismiss on nexus grounds.

3) Minor‑role reductions under § 3B1.2

Four defendants argued they were mere couriers who transported the cocaine, lacked planning authority, did not own the drugs, and were relatively less culpable than unseen recruiters, owners, and distributors. The district court denied reductions after hearing “lengthy arguments,” emphasizing:

  • The sheer quantity—1,121 kilograms—was known to participants.
  • Each defendant knowingly joined the transportation venture, some actively jettisoned bales during flight, and all were to be compensated.
  • Each was responsible for the full drug quantity as relevant conduct.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Applying De Varon and Valois, the panel stressed:

  • The proper comparison is to the “relevant conduct” (this voyage and drug load) and to codefendants participating in that conduct—not to unknown, higher‑level conspirators.
  • The district court considered the totality of applicable § 3B1.2 factors, not a single factor, and reached a plausible view of the evidence.
  • Under deferential clear‑error review, the denial of a minor‑role reduction will rarely be overturned where the record supports the court’s fact‑intensive assessment of relative culpability.

Impact and Significance

Immediate effects in the Eleventh Circuit

  • Constitutional landscape stabilized: With Alfonso and Canario‑Vilomar anchoring the doctrine—and Alfonso having been denied certiorari—the Eleventh Circuit’s view that a foreign EEZ is the “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes is entrenched. As a practical matter, as‑applied constitutional challenges based on EEZ location are nonstarters in this Circuit.
  • No nexus requirement reaffirmed: Prosecutors need not prove any U.S. destination, intended distribution in the U.S., or other ties to the United States for MDLEA prosecutions of stateless vessels. Defense “no nexus” arguments are foreclosed.
  • Sentencing guidance for maritime couriers: Go‑fast crew members carrying very large quantities of narcotics, who knowingly participate and expect payment, will find it difficult to obtain a § 3B1.2 minor‑role reduction. The court will compare them to the crew on the same venture and the conduct for which they are held accountable, not to upstream or downstream conspirators.

Broader legal and practical implications

  • Operational certainty for maritime interdictions: The Coast Guard and prosecutors retain wide latitude to interdict stateless vessels in foreign EEZs and bring MDLEA charges in U.S. courts, without establishing a U.S. nexus.
  • International law/comity debates sidelined (constitutionally): The Eleventh Circuit’s position that international law does not limit Felonies Clause legislation means that any arguments rooted in UNCLOS or comity must be framed as policy considerations for the political branches, not constitutional constraints in litigation. That said, diplomatic equities may still inform executive enforcement choices.
  • Sentencing strategy recalibrations: In maritime cases, defense counsel should expect that role reductions will turn on concrete voyage‑specific facts: knowledge of quantity, extent of participation (e.g., evasion, jettisoning contraband), and evidence of payment. Where role relief is unlikely, variance arguments (history and characteristics, lack of criminal record, duress/economic coercion) may be more productive, as reflected here by below‑guidelines sentences.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): A band of ocean extending up to 200 nautical miles from a coastal state’s baseline. The coastal state has sovereign rights to exploit natural resources there, but the waters are not its “territorial sea.” For criminal jurisdiction under the MDLEA, the Eleventh Circuit treats the EEZ as part of the “high seas.”
  • High seas: International waters beyond any nation’s territorial sea. Under the Eleventh Circuit’s approach, this includes EEZs for Felonies Clause purposes.
  • Stateless vessel: A vessel without nationality—for the MDLEA, this includes vessels where the master or person in charge fails to make a nationality or registry claim when asked. Stateless vessels are subject to the jurisdiction of all states under international law principles, and the MDLEA expressly covers them.
  • Felonies Clause: Article I, § 8, cl. 10 gives Congress power “to define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.” The Eleventh Circuit holds this power is not limited by international law in the MDLEA context and reaches conduct in a foreign EEZ.
  • No‑nexus rule: For MDLEA prosecutions of stateless‑vessel drug trafficking, the government need not show the offense had any specific connection to the United States (destination, intended distribution, etc.).
  • Minor‑role reduction (U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2): A 2‑level decrease for a “minor participant,” someone less culpable than most participants but not minimal. Courts consider five factors (understanding of scope, planning/organizing role, decision‑making authority, nature/extent of acts and discretion, and expected benefit), focus on the relevant conduct for which the defendant is accountable, and compare the defendant to others involved in that same conduct.
  • Prior‑panel precedent rule: In the Eleventh Circuit, a later panel cannot overrule an earlier panel’s published holding; only the Supreme Court or the Eleventh Circuit en banc can do so.

Conclusion

This unpublished but instructive decision confirms three bedrock principles of Eleventh Circuit MDLEA jurisprudence:

  • For Felonies Clause purposes, the EEZ counts as the “high seas,” and international law does not curtail Congress’s MDLEA authority.
  • No U.S. nexus is required to prosecute stateless‑vessel drug trafficking; due process is satisfied by the MDLEA’s clear notice and the universal condemnation of the conduct.
  • Minor‑role reductions for maritime couriers transporting very large drug loads will be hard to secure when the record shows knowing participation, meaningful contribution to the venture (including evasion and jettisoning), and expected compensation; courts will compare the defendant to codefendants and the specific voyage’s relevant conduct, not to the broader conspiracy.

In short, United States v. Lopez‑Anchundia and its companion appeals do not chart new law, but they strongly reinforce the Eleventh Circuit’s post‑Alfonso framework: MDLEA prosecutions remain robust in foreign EEZs without a nexus requirement, and sentencing relief via minor‑role adjustments for go‑fast crews requires compelling, voyage‑specific evidence of comparatively limited culpability.

Case Details

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

Comments