EEZ Is “High Seas” for Felonies Clause; No Nexus Requirement Under the MDLEA; and Role Reductions Must Be Gauged Against Relevant Conduct

Case: United States v. Lauro Aguilar-Gomez (consolidated with appeals by Jhon Yandry Quijije-Mero, Jose Fernando Lopez-Anchundia, Arturo Yonhatan Gil-Zarco, Juan Manuel Torres-Hernandez, and Jhon Henry Alvarado-Valencia)

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Non-Argument Calendar; unpublished)

Date: September 3, 2025

Panel: Branch, Lagoa, and Wilson, JJ. (per curiam)

Introduction

This consolidated appeal arises out of a U.S. Coast Guard interdiction of a go-fast vessel inside Mexico’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The vessel bore no indicia of nationality; the master (Aguilar-Gomez) declined to make a claim of nationality; and 28 bales containing approximately 1,121 kilograms of cocaine were recovered after crew threw packages overboard during pursuit. All six defendants pleaded guilty to conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), 46 U.S.C. §§ 70501 et seq.

On appeal, the defendants mounted three principal challenges:

• An as-applied constitutional challenge arguing Congress lacks Felonies Clause authority to reach conduct in another nation’s EEZ (i.e., the EEZ is not the “high seas”).
• A Due Process and Felonies Clause challenge arguing prosecution requires a “nexus” to the United States, which was absent here.
• Sentencing challenges by four defendants (Quijije-Mero, Lopez‑Anchundia, Gil‑Zarco, and Alvarado‑Valencia) seeking a minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed across the board, relying on its recent, published precedents that control the constitutional issues and applying established circuit law governing minor-role determinations.

Summary of the Judgment

• EEZ as “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes: The court held that binding circuit precedent forecloses the defendants’ argument that the MDLEA is unconstitutional as applied to conduct in an EEZ. Under United States v. Alfonso, the EEZ is treated as part of the “high seas” for Felonies Clause analysis, and international law does not limit Congress’s Felonies Clause power when enacting the MDLEA.
• No nexus requirement: The court reaffirmed that the MDLEA does not require a nexus between the offense and the United States to satisfy either the Felonies Clause or the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, particularly for stateless vessels engaged in drug trafficking on the high seas.
• Minor-role reductions denied: The district court did not clearly err in denying minor-role reductions. The correct comparator is each defendant’s relevant conduct and their roles relative to other participants in that conduct—not relative to the broader drug-trafficking conspiracy. The record supported that each defendant knowingly played an essential role in transporting a very large quantity of cocaine and expected payment.
• Disposition: Convictions and sentences affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 2025 WL 1426696 (May 19, 2025)
  The anchor precedent. Alfonso held that (1) international law does not constrain Congress’s Felonies Clause authority in this context, and (2) EEZs are part of the “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes. This squarely foreclosed the defendants’ EEZ-as-not-high-seas argument.
• United States v. Canario-Vilomar, 128 F.4th 1374 (11th Cir. 2025)
  Reaffirmed Alfonso and rejected the contention that EEZ-based offenses fall outside the MDLEA’s reach or that international law limits Congress’s power to define and punish maritime drug felonies.
• United States v. Cabezas-Montano, 949 F.3d 567 (11th Cir. 2020); United States v. Hernandez, 864 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2017); United States v. Campbell, 743 F.3d 802 (11th Cir. 2014); United States v. Rendon, 354 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2003)
  A consistent line of Eleventh Circuit authority holding that the MDLEA requires no U.S. nexus and that due process is satisfied for aliens seized on the high seas while trafficking drugs aboard stateless vessels.
• United States v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc); United States v. Valois, 915 F.3d 717 (11th Cir. 2019); United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182 (11th Cir. 2016); United States v. Boyd, 291 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2002)
  These cases govern the § 3B1.2 minor-role analysis. De Varon set the two guiding principles: measure role against the defendant’s relevant conduct and against other participants in that relevant conduct. Valois reiterates that courts must consider the totality of circumstances and not fixate on a single factor. Review is for clear error and district courts enjoy considerable discretion.
• United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2008); United States v. Lee, 886 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2018)
  The prior-panel-precedent rule controls: published circuit decisions bind subsequent panels unless overruled en banc or by the Supreme Court. Disagreement with a prior decision’s reasoning does not free a later panel to depart.
• United States v. Dupree, 57 F.4th 1269 (11th Cir. 2023) (en banc); United States v. Jews, 74 F.4th 1325 (11th Cir. 2023)
  Dupree clarifies limits on deference to Guidelines commentary where the guideline text is unambiguous. Here, because neither party contested the commentary, the court—consistent with Jews—relied on it in applying § 3B1.2’s factors.

Legal Reasoning

1) MDLEA’s Extraterritorial Reach in an EEZ

The court rejected the defendants’ as-applied constitutional challenge to the MDLEA’s application within Mexico’s EEZ. Relying on Alfonso and Canario‑Vilomar, the panel held that the Felonies Clause permits Congress to criminalize certain conduct on the “high seas,” and for Felonies Clause purposes, an EEZ is part of the “high seas.” The MDLEA’s operative provisions—46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a)(1), 70503(e)(1), 70506(b)—apply on vessels “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” including “vessel[s] without nationality,” § 70502(c)(1)(A). A vessel is “without nationality” when its master or person in charge fails or declines to make a claim of nationality or registry, § 70502(d)(1)(B). Those statutory conditions were met here.

The court also emphasized that international law does not limit Congress’s Felonies Clause authority in this setting. That point, central to Alfonso, removed any barrier to applying the MDLEA to an interdiction inside another nation’s EEZ when the vessel is stateless.

2) No Due Process “Nexus” Requirement

The panel reaffirmed longstanding Eleventh Circuit precedent that the MDLEA does not impose a nexus requirement to satisfy the Felonies Clause or the Due Process Clause. For stateless vessels on the high seas engaged in drug trafficking, due process is satisfied because the MDLEA provides sufficient notice and because the conduct is universally condemned. The defendants’ request to graft a nexus requirement onto the statute was foreclosed by Cabezas‑Montano, Hernandez, Campbell, and Rendon.

3) Minor-Role Reduction: Relevant Conduct, Totality of Factors, and Clear-Error Review

Under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, a two-level reduction is available to a “minor participant”—one who is less culpable than most participants in the criminal activity but not minimal. The court reiterated that district courts must:

• Compare each defendant’s role to his own relevant conduct (not to the broader conspiracy spanning unknown organizers, manufacturers, and downstream distributors); and
• Assess the role relative to other participants in that relevant conduct.

Applying this framework, the panel found no clear error in denying reductions. The district court considered the totality of the circumstances, including: (a) each defendant’s knowledge that they were transporting a large quantity of cocaine; (b) their essential role in the transportation phase; (c) the anticipated financial benefit (e.g., expected payments); and (d) acts evincing active participation (e.g., throwing bales overboard during pursuit). The fact that none were owners of the drugs or the vessel did not, standing alone, justify a reduction. On this record, and under the deferential clear-error standard, the denials stood.

Of note, Aguilar‑Gomez did not request a role reduction below; he merely argued on appeal that any reduction awarded to co‑defendants should extend to him. Because no co‑defendant prevailed on this issue, the court did not reach that derivative request.

Impact

• Extraterritorial enforcement stability: The Eleventh Circuit continues to provide stable, published precedent underpinning U.S. interdictions in EEZs. Although this opinion is unpublished, it fortifies the practical message of Alfonso and Canario‑Vilomar: the MDLEA’s reach includes stateless vessels in foreign EEZs, and international law does not curtail Congress’s Felonies Clause authority here.
• No nexus requirement—litigation endpoint in this circuit: The panel’s reliance on multiple published decisions signals the entrenchment of the no‑nexus rule for maritime drug cases on stateless vessels.
• Sentencing practice in maritime cases: For defendants seeking § 3B1.2 relief, the proper comparator remains “relevant conduct” and co‑participants in that conduct. Arguments hinging on the amorphous role of unknown suppliers, organizers, and downstream distributors generally fail unless the defendant can demonstrate comparatively lesser culpability within the charged conduct. Large drug quantities, clear awareness of the trafficking activity, and evidence of active efforts to evade interdiction weigh heavily against a reduction.
• Operational implications: For maritime law enforcement, interdictions within EEZs remain on firm legal footing when vessels are stateless. For prosecutors, proving the vessel’s “statelessness” and the crew’s knowledge typically suffices to defeat nexus-based dismissals and counters many role-reduction claims at sentencing.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): A maritime zone extending up to 200 nautical miles from a coastal state’s baseline. The coastal state enjoys sovereign rights to exploit natural resources there, but it does not exercise full sovereignty akin to territorial seas. For Felonies Clause analysis in the Eleventh Circuit, an EEZ is treated as part of the “high seas.”
• High Seas: Waters not subject to the sovereignty of any single nation. Under Eleventh Circuit precedent, the Felonies Clause covers conduct in the EEZ for purposes of the MDLEA.
• Stateless Vessel: A vessel without nationality under 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d), including when the master declines to claim nationality or registry. Stateless vessels are “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” for MDLEA enforcement.
• Felonies Clause (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 10): Grants Congress power to define and punish felonies committed on the high seas. The Eleventh Circuit holds that international law does not constrain this power in the MDLEA context.
• Prior-Panel-Precedent Rule: A published decision by an Eleventh Circuit panel binds subsequent panels unless abrogated by the Supreme Court or by the Eleventh Circuit sitting en banc.
• Nexus Requirement: A proposal that the government must show a connection between the offense and the United States. The Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly rejected a nexus requirement for MDLEA prosecutions involving stateless vessels on the high seas.
• Minor-Role Reduction (§ 3B1.2): A 2-level reduction for defendants who are less culpable than most other participants but not minimal. Courts consider factors such as understanding of the scheme, planning/organization involvement, decision-making authority, the nature/extent of participation, and expected benefit—assessed against the defendant’s relevant conduct and co‑participants in that conduct.

Key Citations from the Judgment

• 46 U.S.C. §§ 70502(c)(1)(A), 70502(d)(1)(B), 70503(a)(1), 70503(b), 70506(a)-(b)
• United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 2025 WL 1426696
• United States v. Canario‑Vilomar, 128 F.4th 1374 (11th Cir. 2025)
• United States v. Cabezas‑Montano, 949 F.3d 567 (11th Cir. 2020)
• United States v. Hernandez, 864 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2017)
• United States v. Campbell, 743 F.3d 802 (11th Cir. 2014)
• United States v. Rendon, 354 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2003)
• United States v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc)
• United States v. Valois, 915 F.3d 717 (11th Cir. 2019)
• United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182 (11th Cir. 2016)
• United States v. Boyd, 291 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2002)
• United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2008)
• United States v. Lee, 886 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2018)
• United States v. Dupree, 57 F.4th 1269 (11th Cir. 2023) (en banc)
• United States v. Jews, 74 F.4th 1325 (11th Cir. 2023)

Practical Takeaways

• Challenging MDLEA coverage in an EEZ is a dead end in the Eleventh Circuit unless and until the Supreme Court or the court en banc revisits Alfonso.
• Do not predicate dismissal on nexus arguments when prosecuting stateless vessels intercepted on the high seas; the Eleventh Circuit has consistently rejected that requirement.
• For role reductions, build a record on “relevant conduct” comparisons: Defense counsel should marshal concrete, case-specific facts showing lesser knowledge, authority, responsibility, and benefit relative to co‑participants on the vessel. Generalized appeals to far‑flung conspirators will not carry the burden.
• Quantity and conduct during interdiction matter: Large drug quantities, evasive behavior (e.g., dumping bales), and expected financial gain weigh against minor-role relief.
• Unpublished but instructive: Although this decision is not binding precedent, it faithfully applies and underscores controlling published authority, offering a clear roadmap for future cases.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in United States v. Lauro Aguilar‑Gomez cements three through-lines in this area of law. First, for Felonies Clause purposes, an EEZ counts as the “high seas,” and international law does not curtail Congress’s power to criminalize maritime drug trafficking via the MDLEA. Second, the MDLEA imposes no nexus requirement to sustain prosecution and satisfies due process for drug trafficking on stateless vessels. Third, minor-role reductions turn on the defendant’s relevant conduct and comparative culpability among co‑participants in that conduct; merely being a non‑owner or non‑captain, or pointing to shadowy higher‑ups, is insufficient absent persuasive evidence of relatively lesser culpability. The opinion—while unpublished—solidifies the Eleventh Circuit’s consistent jurisprudence and offers practical guidance for maritime interdictions, charging decisions, and sentencing advocacy in MDLEA cases.