Eleventh Circuit Reaffirms MDLEA’s Reach Into Foreign EEZs and Rejects Nexus Requirement; Affirms Denial of Minor‑Role Adjustments for Go‑Fast Crew

Introduction

In United States v. Juan Manuel Torres-Hernandez (and consolidated appeals), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed convictions and sentences of six codefendants for cocaine-trafficking offenses under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA). The case stems from a U.S. Coast Guard interdiction of a stateless “go-fast” vessel operating within Mexico’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), where crewmembers jettisoned cocaine bales before being stopped by helicopter fire and boarded.

The appeal raised three principal issues: (1) an as‑applied constitutional challenge asserting that the Felonies Clause does not permit Congress to criminalize conduct in a foreign EEZ because it is not the “high seas”; (2) a due process “nexus” challenge asserting that prosecution without a U.S. nexus exceeds Congress’s authority and violates the Fifth Amendment; and (3) sentencing challenges by four defendants seeking minor‑role reductions under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.

The Eleventh Circuit—on the non‑argument calendar and in an unpublished per curiam opinion—rejected all three challenges, leaning heavily on recent circuit authority. Although not precedential, the opinion is a clear reaffirmation of the Circuit’s current doctrine on the MDLEA’s extraterritorial scope and its approach to minor‑role claims for maritime couriers.

Summary of the Judgment

The court affirmed across the board:

As‑applied constitutional challenge: Foreclosed by United States v. Alfonso (11th Cir. 2024), which holds that the Felonies Clause reaches offenses in a foreign nation’s EEZ and that international law does not limit Congress’s authority in this context.
Due process nexus challenge: Foreclosed by longstanding Eleventh Circuit precedent holding the MDLEA valid without any U.S. nexus and rejecting due process arguments for aliens on stateless vessels engaged in drug trafficking.
Minor‑role reductions: The district court did not clearly err in denying § 3B1.2(b) adjustments where defendants knowingly helped transport approximately 1,121 kilograms of cocaine, actively participated in the interdiction episode (including throwing bales overboard), and stood to be paid; the court properly focused on relevant conduct and co‑participants.

Factual and Procedural Background

In 2023, the Coast Guard attempted to stop a go‑fast vessel inside Mexico’s EEZ. The vessel bore no indicia of nationality and initially refused to heave to. During the pursuit, crew threw packages into the sea. A helicopter’s warning shots failed; disabling fire stopped the vessel. Once aboard, the Coast Guard recovered 28 bales from the water—about 1,121 kilograms of cocaine. The identified master declined to claim nationality for the vessel, rendering it stateless under the MDLEA. A federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida indicted all six men for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while aboard a vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction (46 U.S.C. §§ 70503, 70506; 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B)(ii); 18 U.S.C. § 2).

Defendants moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing (1) Congress cannot reach EEZ conduct under the Felonies Clause, and (2) the prosecution lacked any nexus to the United States, violating due process. The district court denied the motion. All six defendants then entered open guilty pleas.

At sentencing, four defendants—Jhon Yandry Quijije‑Mero, Jose Fernando Lopez‑Anchundia, Arturo Yonhatan Gil‑Zarco, and Jhon Henry Alvarado‑Valencia—sought minor‑role reductions as mere couriers. The district court denied the requests and imposed below‑guidelines sentences of 75 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release on each of those four, and on Juan Manuel Torres‑Hernandez (who did not challenge his sentence). Vessel operator Lauro Aguilar‑Gomez received 85 months and 3 years’ supervised release; he did not seek a minor‑role reduction in the district court.

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 cornerstone. Alfonso holds that (a) international law does not limit Congress’s Felonies Clause authority and (b) a foreign EEZ is part of the “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes. This opinion relied on Alfonso to reject the EEZ‑based constitutional challenge.
United States v. Canario‑Vilomar, 128 F.4th 1374 (11th Cir. 2025):
Reaffirmed Alfonso and again rejected the claim that the MDLEA cannot reach EEZ conduct. The court cited Canario‑Vilomar to underscore the settled nature of the point in this Circuit.
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 cases collectively hold that the MDLEA does not require a nexus to the United States and that due process is not offended by prosecuting aliens on stateless vessels for maritime drug trafficking, in part because such conduct is universally condemned and the MDLEA provides clear notice.
United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2008):
The prior‑panel‑precedent rule binds later panels unless overruled by the Supreme Court or the Eleventh Circuit en banc. The panel invoked this rule to decline reconsideration of Alfonso and related authorities.
United States v. Lee, 886 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2018):
A contention that a prior case was “wrongly decided” is not a basis for a subsequent panel to disregard it. The panel cited Lee to reject the appellants’ invitation to revisit Alfonso.
Sentencing authorities: 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 set the framework for minor‑role determinations—emphasizing comparison to the defendant’s relevant conduct and co‑participants, a totality‑of‑the‑circumstances inquiry, and deferential clear‑error review.
Guideline commentary deference: 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 limits deference to commentary where the guideline text is clear; Jews notes courts may rely on commentary when its validity is not disputed by the parties—as here, both sides relied on § 3B1.2 commentary, and the panel did as well.

Legal Reasoning

1) EEZ Conduct and the Felonies Clause

The MDLEA criminalizes drug trafficking aboard a “vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” expressly including stateless vessels—such as those where the master “fails to make a claim of nationality or registry” (46 U.S.C. §§ 70502(c)(1)(A), (d)(1)(B), 70503(a), (b), 70506). The appellants argued their interdiction within Mexico’s EEZ took them outside the “high seas” contemplated by the Felonies Clause (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 10). The panel rejected that argument as foreclosed by Alfonso, which explicitly treats the EEZ as part of the “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes and holds that international law does not constrain Congress’s authority in crafting the MDLEA. The court also pointed to Canario‑Vilomar as a recent reaffirmation.

The appellants attempted to preserve the issue for further review, but the panel invoked the prior‑panel‑precedent rule, emphasizing that disagreement with Alfonso’s reasoning is not a reason to disregard it absent en banc or Supreme Court intervention.

2) Due Process and the “Nexus” Argument

Appellants argued that due process requires a U.S. nexus for extraterritorial prosecution and that Congress exceeded its Felonies Clause authority absent such a nexus. The panel rejected this as doubly foreclosed: first, the MDLEA’s validity under the Felonies Clause does not hinge on a U.S. nexus; and second, the Fifth Amendment is not violated by prosecuting aliens captured on the high seas aboard stateless vessels engaged in drug trafficking. The court relied on the line of cases from Rendon through Cabezas‑Montano, which consistently decline to graft a nexus requirement onto the MDLEA and reason that international consensus condemns such trafficking, providing fair notice.

3) Minor‑Role Reductions under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2

Four defendants sought two‑level “minor participant” reductions. The district court denied these requests, and the panel affirmed under clear‑error review. Two key principles drove the analysis:

Focus on relevant conduct: A defendant’s role is measured against the conduct for which he is held accountable and the participants in that relevant conduct—not the entirety of a broader, uncharged or unquantified transnational conspiracy (De Varon; Valois).
Totality of the circumstances: The court evaluates all applicable § 3B1.2 factors, including knowledge of the enterprise, decision‑making authority, the nature and extent of acts performed, and expected benefit.

The record supported the district court’s view that these defendants were critical to the transportation of an exceptionally large quantity of cocaine, understood the illicit nature of the undertaking, engaged in active evasion (including discarding bales), and expected payment. They were all held responsible for the same quantity. While none owned the drugs or captained the enterprise, those facts alone were insufficient. Because the district court considered the totality of the circumstances and made a permissible choice among competing inferences, there was no clear error.

Notably, one appellant (Aguilar‑Gomez) did not seek a minor‑role reduction below and only asked the court of appeals to extend to him any favorable ruling obtained by his codefendants. Because no codefendant prevailed, the panel did not reach that derivative claim. Another (Torres‑Hernandez) did not challenge his sentence at all.

Impact

Extraterritorial reach consolidated: Although unpublished, the opinion reinforces a now‑robust Eleventh Circuit line upholding MDLEA prosecutions originating in foreign EEZs and on stateless vessels. Coupled with Alfonso (cert. denied) and Canario‑Vilomar, the practical message is that EEZ‑based constitutional challenges are functionally closed in this Circuit absent en banc or Supreme Court change.
Nexus arguments further diminished: The court again declines to import a nexus requirement and finds no due process violation for alien crewmembers on stateless vessels. Defense strategies predicated on nexus or fairness‑notice arguments are unlikely to succeed in the Eleventh Circuit.
Sentencing practice for maritime couriers: The decision underscores the difficulty of obtaining a minor‑role adjustment for go‑fast crew moving large quantities. Merely being a “courier,” lacking ownership interest, or not captaining the vessel will not suffice. Practitioners should marshal specific evidence on limited knowledge, minimal discretion, and a distinctly smaller role compared to co‑participants within the same relevant conduct, and be prepared that the sheer quantity and active evasion weigh heavily against relief.
Enforcement implications: The Coast Guard and prosecutors can read this as continued judicial support for interdictions in foreign EEZs and for prosecutions without demonstrating a U.S. destination or domestic distribution link. This legal posture facilitates forward‑leaning maritime enforcement across the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific within the Eleventh Circuit’s geographic footprint.
International law posture: By reaffirming that international law does not limit Congress’s Felonies Clause authority in this setting and treating EEZs as “high seas” for constitutional purposes, the Circuit’s approach minimizes the need to resolve UNCLOS nuances case‑by‑case, at least where stateless vessels and MDLEA charges are concerned.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): A maritime band extending up to 200 nautical miles from a coastal state’s baseline. The coastal state has sovereign rights over natural resources but does not have full sovereignty as in its territorial sea (which typically extends 12 nautical miles). For Eleventh Circuit constitutional purposes after Alfonso, the EEZ is part of the “high seas” for the Felonies Clause.
High seas: Waters beyond any nation’s territorial sea. The Eleventh Circuit treats foreign EEZs as high seas for Felonies Clause analysis.
Felonies Clause: Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 of the Constitution gives Congress power to define and punish felonies committed on the high seas, among other things (piracies and offenses against the law of nations).
Stateless vessel: A vessel without nationality—e.g., one whose master fails to claim nationality or registry when asked. The MDLEA treats stateless vessels as within U.S. jurisdiction.
MDLEA (46 U.S.C. §§ 70501 et seq.): Federal statute criminalizing drug trafficking aboard vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction, with penalties cross‑referencing 21 U.S.C. § 960. It expressly applies extraterritorially.
Nexus requirement (not in the Eleventh Circuit): A legal theory that extraterritorial prosecutions should require a meaningful link to the United States. The Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly rejected adding such a requirement to the MDLEA.
Minor‑role adjustment (U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b)): A two‑level reduction for defendants “less culpable than most other participants” in the criminal activity. Courts examine knowledge, decision‑making, extent of participation, and expected benefit, among other factors, compared against the defendant’s relevant conduct and co‑participants in that conduct.
Clear‑error review: A deferential standard. An appellate court will not disturb the district court’s minor‑role finding unless left with a “definite and firm conviction” that a mistake occurred.
Prior‑panel‑precedent rule: Eleventh Circuit doctrine requiring later panels to follow prior panel decisions unless overruled by the Eleventh Circuit en banc or the Supreme Court.

Conclusion

United States v. Juan Manuel Torres‑Hernandez and the consolidated appeals deliver a forceful, if unpublished, restatement of the Eleventh Circuit’s current MDLEA jurisprudence:

The MDLEA applies to stateless vessels interdicted in a foreign EEZ; under Alfonso and its progeny, such waters are treated as the “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes and Congress’s authority is not constrained by international law.
No U.S. nexus is required to prosecute MDLEA offenses, and due process is not offended by prosecuting aliens engaging in universally condemned maritime drug trafficking aboard stateless vessels.
Minor‑role reductions for maritime couriers transporting very large quantities will be hard to secure where the record shows knowledge of illegality, active participation in the transport and evasion, and an expected pecuniary benefit. The analysis is anchored to relevant conduct and co‑participants, not to far‑removed architects of a broader conspiracy.

While the opinion is designated “not for publication” and therefore not binding precedent, it faithfully applies binding authority and offers clear guidance to practitioners. For defense counsel, the most promising avenues lie in early strategic decisions—such as eligibility for safety‑valve relief, acceptance‑of‑responsibility, and robust, evidence‑rich presentations on limited knowledge and discretion—rather than constitutional or nexus challenges that are foreclosed in this Circuit. For the government, the case confirms the durability of the MDLEA enforcement framework in foreign EEZs and the continued viability of treating stateless go‑fast interdictions as quintessential MDLEA cases.