Implied “Request” Satisfies MDLEA Statelessness and EEZ-as-High-Seas Reaffirmed: United States v. Placido Rivera‑Rodriguez (11th Cir. 2025)

Implied “Request” Satisfies MDLEA Statelessness and EEZ-as-High-Seas Reaffirmed: United States v. Placido Rivera‑Rodriguez (11th Cir. 2025)

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

Date: October 21, 2025

Panel: Chief Judge William Pryor, Judge Jill Pryor, and Judge Brasher

Consolidated Appeals: Nos. 23‑12779; 23‑12828; 23‑12842

Case Caption: United States v. Placido Rivera‑Rodriguez (consolidated with United States v. Santo Rosario‑Rivera and United States v. Francisco Rijo‑Rijo)

Disposition: Convictions affirmed

Publication Status: Not for publication (nonprecedential within the Eleventh Circuit)

Introduction

In this consolidated, unpublished decision, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions of three defendants—Santo Rosario‑Rivera, Francisco Rijo‑Rijo, and Placido Rivera‑Rodriguez—who pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess and possessing with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine aboard a vessel subject to United States jurisdiction under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503, 70506.

The case addresses two recurring issues in MDLEA prosecutions:

  • Whether Congress may apply the MDLEA to conduct occurring in a coastal state’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and without a U.S. nexus under the Constitution’s Felonies Clause and the Due Process Clause; and
  • What evidentiary showing suffices to establish statutory “jurisdiction”—in particular, whether the Coast Guard’s “request” for a claim of nationality can be found by reasonable inference from testimony about standard boarding procedures and a defendant’s stipulation that no claim was made.

The court held that Eleventh Circuit precedent forecloses the constitutional challenges, reaffirming that the EEZ counts as “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes and that no U.S. nexus is required. On the statutory question, the court upheld the district court’s implicit finding—reviewed for clear error—that the Coast Guard requested a nationality claim, thereby rendering the vessel “without nationality” under 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(B).

Summary of the Opinion

The Coast Guard intercepted an unflagged vessel about 130 nautical miles off Aruba (within Aruba’s EEZ), discovered 18 bales of cocaine, and arrested the three men onboard. Although each man verbally claimed Haitian nationality for himself, no one identified as the vessel’s master or made a claim of nationality for the vessel. The men moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing: (1) the EEZ is not the “high seas,” so Congress exceeded its Felonies Clause authority; (2) due process requires a U.S. nexus; and (3) the MDLEA’s statutory jurisdictional requirements were not satisfied because the record did not expressly show that the Coast Guard asked them to make a claim of nationality “on request” as § 70502(d)(1)(B) requires.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected each argument:

  • Constitutional challenges: The court reaffirmed its precedents holding that (i) the MDLEA is a valid exercise of the Felonies Clause even without a U.S. nexus (United States v. Campbell; United States v. Cabezas‑Montano), and (ii) a coastal state’s EEZ is part of the “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes (United States v. Alfonso, cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2706 (2025)).
  • Statutory “jurisdiction” under the MDLEA: The government bears the burden of showing the vessel was subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The panel held the district court did not clearly err in implicitly finding that the Coast Guard requested a claim of nationality—based on testimony concerning standard “right of visit” boarding procedures and the defendants’ stipulation that no claim of nationality was made—thereby rendering the vessel “without nationality” under § 70502(d)(1)(B).

The court affirmed the convictions and sentences (57 months’ imprisonment, five years’ supervised release).

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

  • United States v. Campbell, 743 F.3d 802 (11th Cir. 2014)

    Campbell is a foundational Eleventh Circuit case affirming that the MDLEA’s extraterritorial reach to stateless vessels and drug trafficking on the high seas is a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Felonies Clause. Crucially, Campbell rejects the requirement of a U.S. nexus as a constitutional prerequisite. In this case, the panel expressly relied on Campbell to foreclose the defendants’ nexus and Due Process Clause arguments.

  • United States v. Cabezas‑Montano, 949 F.3d 567 (11th Cir. 2020)

    Cabezas‑Montano reiterated Campbell’s no‑nexus holding and clarified standards of review in MDLEA cases: statutory interpretation and constitutional questions are reviewed de novo, while factual findings relevant to MDLEA jurisdiction are reviewed for clear error. This opinion cites Cabezas‑Montano both for the standards of review and for the no‑nexus principle, framing how the panel evaluated the record concerning the Coast Guard’s “request.”

  • United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2706 (2025)

    Alfonso squarely held that a coastal state’s EEZ is part of the “high seas” for purposes of the Felonies Clause. By invoking Alfonso, the panel disposed of the defendants’ contention that Aruba’s EEZ takes their conduct outside Congress’s Felonies Clause authority. The subsequent Supreme Court denial of certiorari underscores the settled status of this proposition within the Eleventh Circuit.

Legal Reasoning

1) Constitutional Challenges

The defendants argued that enforcement in Aruba’s EEZ exceeded Congress’s authority because the EEZ is not the “high seas” under customary international law. They also pressed that due process requires a U.S. nexus. The panel treated these contentions as foreclosed by binding circuit authority:

  • EEZ as “high seas”: Under Alfonso, the EEZ qualifies as “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes, which is sufficient to sustain Congress’s extraterritorial authority in this context. The Constitution’s Felonies Clause, as interpreted by the Eleventh Circuit, permits Congress to proscribe conduct on the high seas—including in the EEZ—even if that zone entails certain resource rights of the coastal state; it is not the coastal state’s sovereign territory.
  • No nexus requirement and due process: Campbell and Cabezas‑Montano hold that the MDLEA does not require a U.S. nexus to comport with the Felonies Clause or the Due Process Clause. The Eleventh Circuit has consistently viewed high‑seas drug trafficking on vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction as a matter within Congress’s constitutional reach without a nexus showing.

2) Statutory “Jurisdiction” Under the MDLEA

The MDLEA criminalizes drug possession and distribution conspiracy “while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” See 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a)(1), 70506(a)–(b). A “vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” includes a “vessel without nationality.” § 70502(c)(1)(A). One way a vessel is “without nationality” is when “the master or individual in charge fails, on request of [an authorized U.S. officer], to make a claim of nationality or registry for that vessel.” § 70502(d)(1)(B).

The government bears the burden of establishing this statutory jurisdiction. The defendants contended the record lacked proof that the Coast Guard actually made the requisite “request” for a claim of nationality, pointing to the absence of direct testimony that officers asked the question. The panel nevertheless affirmed the district court’s finding—implicitly made and reviewed for clear error—that the request occurred, emphasizing:

  • Credited testimony on standard procedure: A Coast Guard lieutenant testified that during “right of visit” boardings, personnel ask everyone onboard whether anyone is the master and whether anyone makes a claim of nationality for the vessel. The district court credited that testimony as describing the normal protocol.
  • Defendants’ stipulation: Each defendant stipulated that he did not claim to be the master and did not make a claim of nationality for the vessel. Although the stipulations did not recite the question verbatim, the district court could reasonably infer that the standard request occurred and that the defendants failed to respond with a claim.

Under clear‑error review, the Eleventh Circuit held the record sufficed to show the “on request” element of § 70502(d)(1)(B). With no claim of nationality forthcoming, the vessel was stateless and therefore subject to U.S. jurisdiction under § 70502(c)(1)(A).

Impact and Practical Significance

1) Constitutional Landscape in the Eleventh Circuit

  • EEZ-as-high-seas is entrenched: By relying on Alfonso (and noting the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari), the court signals the durability of the proposition that the EEZ is “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes in the Eleventh Circuit.
  • No U.S. nexus required: The decision reinforces the circuit’s settled view that neither the Felonies Clause nor due process imposes a nexus requirement for MDLEA prosecutions of conduct on the high seas involving vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

2) Proof of the “On Request” Requirement Under § 70502(d)(1)(B)

  • Implicit findings can carry the day: Even absent a verbatim record that the Coast Guard asked, the government can meet its burden through credible testimony about standard boarding protocols coupled with defense stipulations that no claim of nationality was made. The court’s acceptance of an implicit finding materially eases the evidentiary burden in cases where the paper trail is imperfect.
  • Practice implications for the government: While this opinion permits inference from standard operating procedure, prosecutors should still strive to build a clean record—e.g., body‑worn camera logs, boarding reports and direct testimony that the “claim‑of‑nationality” question was asked—to avoid litigating the sufficiency of inferences on appeal.
  • Practice implications for the defense: Defenders intending to challenge jurisdiction under § 70502(d)(1)(B) should avoid stipulations that might allow an inference that the request was made; they should probe the boarding officer directly on whether the request occurred in fact, and seek explicit findings. They should also challenge the adequacy of generic “SOP” testimony if the particular boarding deviated from standard practice.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Felonies Clause (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 10): Authorizes Congress to “define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas.” The Eleventh Circuit interprets this to permit Congress to criminalize drug trafficking on the high seas—including in the EEZ—without a U.S. nexus when the vessel is subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

  • Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): A maritime zone extending up to 200 nautical miles from a coastal state’s baseline in which that state has special economic rights. It is not the coastal state’s sovereign territory. The Eleventh Circuit treats the EEZ as part of the “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes (United States v. Alfonso).

  • MDLEA “vessel without nationality” (stateless vessel): Under 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d), a vessel can be stateless in several ways, including when the master or person in charge fails—after a U.S. officer’s request—to make a claim of nationality or registry for the vessel (§ 70502(d)(1)(B)). Stateless vessels are “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” (§ 70502(c)(1)(A)).

  • “Right of visit” boarding: A maritime law enforcement authority to board a vessel on the high seas (including the EEZ) in certain circumstances, such as suspicion of statelessness. In such a boarding, the Coast Guard typically asks if anyone is the master and whether there is a claim of nationality or registry for the vessel.

  • Standards of review in MDLEA cases: The court reviews statutory “jurisdiction” questions and constitutional issues de novo, but reviews underlying factual findings (e.g., whether a request for nationality was made) for clear error. Clear error is deferential; an appellate court will uphold the district court’s finding if it is plausible in light of the record as a whole.

  • MDLEA “jurisdiction” is for the court, not an element for the jury: The statute assigns the “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” determination to the court. In the Eleventh Circuit, the government must prove these jurisdictional predicates, but they are resolved by the judge rather than the jury.

Conclusion

United States v. Placido Rivera‑Rodriguez reinforces two pillars of Eleventh Circuit MDLEA jurisprudence: (1) the EEZ qualifies as “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes and no U.S. nexus is required, and (2) the government can satisfy the MDLEA’s “on request” statelessness requirement through credible testimony about standard Coast Guard procedures and a defendant’s stipulation that no claim of nationality was made. Although unpublished and therefore nonbinding as precedent, the decision is a practical roadmap for proving statutory jurisdiction where the record is less than explicit. Practitioners should expect continued vigorous MDLEA enforcement in the Eleventh Circuit over stateless vessels intercepted in EEZ waters, with courts prepared to credit reasonable inferences supporting the “request‑and‑failure” path to statelessness under § 70502(d)(1)(B).

Case Details

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

Comments