Eleventh Circuit Reaffirms MDLEA Reach into Foreign EEZs, No Nexus Requirement, and Denial of Minor‑Role Reductions for Go‑Fast Crews

Eleventh Circuit Reaffirms MDLEA Reach into Foreign EEZs, No Nexus Requirement, and Denial of Minor‑Role Reductions for Go‑Fast Crews

Introduction

This commentary analyzes the Eleventh Circuit’s unpublished, consolidated decision in United States v. Arturo Yonhatan Gil‑Zarco (with codefendants Jhon Yandry Quijije‑Mero, Lauro Aguilar‑Gomez, Jose Fernando Lopez‑Anchundia, Juan Manuel Torres‑Hernandez, and Jhon Henry Alvarado‑Valencia), decided September 3, 2025. The case arises from a Coast Guard interdiction of a stateless “go‑fast” vessel operating within Mexico’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), during which crewmembers jettisoned 28 bales containing approximately 1,121 kilograms of cocaine. After denial of a joint motion to dismiss the indictment, all defendants entered open guilty pleas to conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine aboard a vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA).

On appeal, the defendants advanced three principal arguments:

  • An as‑applied constitutional challenge: the MDLEA cannot reach conduct in a foreign nation’s EEZ because, they argued, an EEZ is not the “high seas” within Congress’s Felonies Clause power.
  • A due process and Felonies Clause “nexus” challenge: prosecution without a U.S. nexus violates due process and exceeds congressional power.
  • Sentencing claims: four appellants sought a two‑level minor‑role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b), contending their courier roles were comparatively minor.

The court affirmed in full. While unpublished and thus non‑precedential, the decision reinforces binding circuit doctrine on MDLEA extraterritorial reach and no‑nexus requirements, and it illustrates—yet again—the Eleventh Circuit’s approach to minor‑role reductions for maritime couriers.

Summary of the Judgment

  • MDLEA constitutionality as applied to the EEZ: Affirmed. The court held the claim foreclosed by United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 2025 WL 1426696 (May 19, 2025), and United States v. Canario‑Vilomar, 128 F.4th 1374 (11th Cir. 2025), which recognize that EEZ waters are treated as part of the “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes and that international law does not limit Congress’s authority in crafting the MDLEA.
  • No nexus requirement and due process: Affirmed. Relying on longstanding precedent, including 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); and United States v. Rendon, 354 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2003), the court reiterated that neither the MDLEA nor due process requires a U.S. nexus for drug trafficking aboard stateless vessels on the high seas.
  • Minor‑role reductions: Affirmed. Applying De Varon and its progeny, the court found no clear error in the district court’s denial of § 3B1.2(b) reductions to four appellants. The district court properly measured each defendant’s role against the relevant conduct for which he was held accountable, considered the totality of § 3B1.2’s factors, and permissibly compared the crew members to one another in that relevant conduct.

Factual and Procedural Background

In 2023, the Coast Guard interdicted a go‑fast vessel in Mexico’s EEZ. The craft bore no indicia of nationality, refused to heave‑to, and its crew jettisoned packages overboard during the pursuit. After warning and disabling fire from a helicopter, the Coast Guard boarded. The identified master, Aguilar‑Gomez, declined to assert nationality for the vessel. The Coast Guard recovered 28 bales—about 1,121 kg of cocaine.

A Southern District of Florida grand jury charged all six defendants with:

  • Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while aboard a vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction, in violation of 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a)(1), 70506(a), (b) and 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii); and
  • Possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while aboard such a vessel, in violation of 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a)(1), 70506(a), 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii), and 18 U.S.C. § 2.

The joint motion to dismiss argued the MDLEA’s inapplicability to conduct occurring in a foreign EEZ and the absence of a due process “nexus.” The district court denied the motion. All defendants then entered open guilty pleas. At sentencing, four defendants (Quijije‑Mero, Lopez‑Anchundia, Gil‑Zarco, and Alvarado‑Valencia) sought minor‑role adjustments; the district court denied those requests and imposed below‑Guidelines sentences of 75 months and three years of supervised release (85 months for Aguilar‑Gomez, the operator).

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Role in the Decision

  • United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 2025 WL 1426696 (May 19, 2025)
    • Alfonso squarely held that EEZs are treated as part of the “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes and that international law does not circumscribe Congress’s power to define and punish high‑seas felonies via the MDLEA. Alfonso therefore foreclosed the appellants’ EEZ‑based as‑applied challenge.
  • United States v. Canario‑Vilomar, 128 F.4th 1374 (11th Cir. 2025)
    • Reaffirmed Alfonso’s core holdings, further entrenching the proposition that conduct in EEZ waters falls within the Felonies Clause reach of the MDLEA and is not constrained by international law limits.
  • United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2008)
    • Prior‑panel precedent rule: one panel cannot overrule another; only the en banc court or the Supreme Court can. This principle prevented the panel from revisiting Alfonso and related precedent even if appellants urged reconsideration.
  • 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)
    • These decisions collectively establish that the MDLEA does not require a U.S. nexus for prosecution of drug trafficking aboard stateless vessels and that due process is not offended because the MDLEA provides clear notice and reflects universal condemnation of such conduct.
  • 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 fact‑intensive minor‑role inquiry and the clear‑error standard, emphasizing comparison to the defendant’s relevant conduct and, where appropriate, to co‑participants in that relevant conduct—not to the broader conspiracy.
  • 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 cautions that courts should not defer to Guidelines commentary absent textual ambiguity, but where the parties do not contest the commentary’s validity—as here—the court may rely on it (as Jews recognizes).

Legal Reasoning

1) MDLEA Authority Extends to EEZ Interdictions

The MDLEA criminalizes possession with intent to distribute controlled substances aboard a “vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” including stateless vessels (a category that expressly encompasses vessels on which the master declines to make a claim of nationality). See 46 U.S.C. §§ 70502(c)(1)(A), 70502(d)(1)(B), 70503(a)(1), 70503(b), 70506. The defendants’ craft was stateless because the master (Aguilar‑Gomez) declined to assert nationality. That status alone brought the vessel under the statute.

Appellants’ as‑applied Felonies Clause challenge turned on geography: the interdiction occurred in Mexico’s EEZ, not the territorial sea, and thus—so they argued—outside the “high seas.” Alfonso resolves this: for Felonies Clause purposes, an EEZ is treated as part of the high seas, and international law does not limit Congress in defining and punishing high‑seas felonies via the MDLEA. Canario‑Vilomar reaffirms Alfonso. Under the Eleventh Circuit’s prior‑panel precedent rule (Archer), this panel was bound to apply Alfonso and Canario‑Vilomar, and it did so, rejecting the as‑applied challenge.

2) No U.S. Nexus Required; Due Process Not Violated

The Eleventh Circuit again emphasized that neither the MDLEA nor due process principles impose a U.S. nexus requirement for drug‑trafficking prosecutions aboard stateless vessels on the high seas. The court relied on a consistent line of cases—Rendon, Campbell, Hernandez, and Cabezas‑Montano—holding that:

  • Congress may reach conduct on stateless vessels on the high seas without a nexus to the United States.
  • Due process is satisfied because the MDLEA gives clear notice that such conduct is universally condemned and subject to prosecution; thus, foreign nationals on stateless vessels have fair warning of criminality and potential prosecution.

3) Minor‑Role Reductions: Relevant‑Conduct Focus and Clear‑Error Review

Four defendants sought a two‑level decrease under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) as “minor participants.” The court applied De Varon and later refinements:

  • Core inquiry: whether the defendant is substantially less culpable than most other participants in the relevant conduct for which he is held accountable, not whether he is less culpable than all actors in the broader conspiracy (recruiters, financiers, distributors).
  • Two analytical anchors (De Varon/Valois):
    • Compare the defendant’s role against his own relevant conduct.
    • Compare the defendant’s role to other participants in that relevant conduct.
  • Consider the § 3B1.2 commentary factors holistically: understanding of scope/structure, participation in planning/organization, decision‑making authority, nature/extent of acts and discretion, and expected benefit.
  • Standard of review is clear error; district courts have “considerable discretion” in weighing mixed facts.

Applying these principles, the district court permissibly found that each appellant:

  • Knew he was transporting a very large cocaine load across international waters and that the conduct was illegal.
  • Was integral to the transportation phase (a necessary and critical component) and expected payment.
  • Was held accountable for the same relevant conduct and quantity as his codefendants.

The court did not commit legal error by declining to compare the defendants to shadowy upstream/downstream conspirators. Nor did it rely on any single factor; it addressed the totality of circumstances after extensive argument. On this record, the Eleventh Circuit was not left with a “definite and firm conviction” of error and affirmed the denial of minor‑role reductions.

Impact and Prospective Significance

  • EEZ Interdictions: The decision underscores that, in the Eleventh Circuit, the MDLEA’s reach into foreign EEZs is settled—at least at the panel level—by Alfonso and Canario‑Vilomar. Defense arguments premised on an EEZ/high‑seas distinction are unlikely to succeed absent en banc or Supreme Court intervention.
  • No Nexus Doctrine: The opinion reinforces a long, unbroken line of cases that reject any U.S. nexus requirement for stateless vessels, maintaining robust extraterritorial prosecutorial tools for maritime drug enforcement.
  • Sentencing in Maritime Courier Cases: The ruling offers practical guidance:
    • Crew members on stateless go‑fast vessels moving multi‑hundred‑kilogram loads will have difficulty securing minor‑role reductions without concrete evidence distinguishing their culpability within the relevant conduct.
    • Courts will focus on what the defendant actually did and knew in the transportation episode, not the broader conspiracy architecture.
    • Even when acknowledging lack of ownership or command, district courts may deny reductions where the defendant’s role was essential and remunerated, and the quantity was substantial.
  • Litigation Strategy: For defense counsel, successful minor‑role arguments will likely require record evidence of:
    • Markedly reduced knowledge of the scope and structure of the operation.
    • Minimal discretion and decision‑making authority, beyond routine execution of orders.
    • Nominal or fixed compensation suggesting fungibility and limited culpability.
    • Facts in mitigation that differentiate the client from other crew members in the same venture.

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 has sovereign rights for resource exploitation, but the waters remain international for navigation and other high‑seas freedoms. The Eleventh Circuit treats EEZs as part of the “high seas” for the Felonies Clause.
  • High Seas: Areas of the ocean beyond any nation’s territorial sea. For MDLEA purposes, this includes EEZ waters, and the statute expressly applies extraterritorially.
  • Stateless Vessel: A vessel is “without nationality” if, among other things, its master fails to make a claim of nationality or registry when asked. Stateless vessels may be interdicted and prosecuted under the MDLEA by the United States.
  • Felonies Clause: Article I, § 8, cl. 10 of the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to “define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas” and “Offences against the Law of Nations.” The Eleventh Circuit holds that international law does not limit this grant when Congress legislates extraterritorially under the MDLEA.
  • No Nexus Requirement: In MDLEA prosecutions involving stateless vessels on the high seas, the government need not prove a connection to the United States (such as intended U.S. destination or U.S. victims). Due process is satisfied because the conduct is universally condemned and clearly proscribed.
  • Minor‑Role Reduction (U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2): A two‑level decrease for defendants “less culpable than most other participants” in the criminal activity. Courts compare the defendant’s role to his relevant conduct and to co‑participants in that relevant conduct, not to the entire conspiracy. The analysis is fact‑intensive and reviewed for clear error.
  • Prior‑Panel Precedent Rule: In the Eleventh Circuit, a panel is bound by prior published panel decisions unless overruled by the court en banc or by the Supreme Court. Unpublished decisions, like this one, are not binding but may be persuasive.

Conclusion

Although unpublished, United States v. Gil‑Zarco and its consolidated appeals operate as a comprehensive reaffirmation of settled Eleventh Circuit law in maritime drug cases:

  • The MDLEA applies to stateless vessels interdicted in foreign EEZs; EEZs are treated as part of the “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes, and international law imposes no external limit on Congress’s MDLEA authority.
  • No U.S. nexus is required for MDLEA prosecutions of stateless vessels; due process is not violated because the law provides clear notice and reflects universal condemnation of the conduct.
  • Requests for minor‑role reductions by maritime couriers will turn on a rigorous, fact‑specific assessment of the defendant’s role in the relevant conduct; mere courier status, absence of ownership, or lack of command, without more, will rarely suffice where the load is large and the defendant’s participation was integral and remunerated.

For prosecutors and district courts within the Eleventh Circuit, the opinion provides further clarity and continuity. For defense counsel, it signals the importance of developing granular, defendant‑specific mitigation evidence tailored to the De Varon framework if pursuing a minor‑role reduction in MDLEA cases. In the broader legal landscape, the decision underscores the durability of the Eleventh Circuit’s MDLEA jurisprudence and its robust approach to extraterritorial maritime drug enforcement.

Case Details

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

Comments