MDLEA Enforcement in Foreign EEZs Upheld; Congress Not Constrained by Customary International Law in Defining “Vessel Without Nationality”

Introduction

United States v. Jorman Jose Goitia (consolidated with appeals by codefendants Daribel Sanchez and Jose Antonio Rodriguez) is an Eleventh Circuit decision affirming MDLEA convictions arising from a maritime cocaine interdiction near the Dominican Republic. The principal issues were constitutional and jurisdictional: (1) whether the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (“MDLEA”) may be enforced within another country’s Exclusive Economic Zone (“EEZ”); (2) whether 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(C) unconstitutionally expands U.S. jurisdiction by treating some vessels as “without nationality” even if they would not be “stateless” under customary international law; (3) whether due process requires a nexus between the defendants and the United States; (4) whether State Department jurisdiction certifications implicate the Confrontation Clause; and (5) as to Goitia, whether the district court clearly erred by denying a minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.

The defendants were stopped on a “go-fast” vessel about 169 miles southeast of Isla Beata (Dominican Republic). The vessel showed no indicia of nationality. The defendants jettisoned packages, later recovered and field-tested positive for cocaine (15 bales; “sea weight” 386 kg). Each defendant claimed Colombian nationality, but none claimed to be the master. Colombia “could neither confirm nor deny” the vessel’s registration, and the United States treated the vessel as “without nationality.” All three pleaded guilty to MDLEA conspiracy; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions and, for Goitia, the sentence.

Summary of the Opinion

  • EEZ enforcement: Foreclosed by binding Eleventh Circuit precedent holding that the EEZ is part of the “high seas” for purposes of the Constitution’s Felonies Clause; MDLEA enforcement in the EEZ is therefore proper.
  • “Vessel without nationality” definition: Also foreclosed by precedent; Congress is not limited by customary international law in defining “stateless vessel” for MDLEA purposes, including § 70502(d)(1)(C) where the claimed registry nation neither confirms nor denies.
  • Due process nexus: No U.S. nexus is required for MDLEA prosecutions under Eleventh Circuit law.
  • Confrontation Clause: State Department certifications to prove MDLEA jurisdiction do not violate the Confrontation Clause and are not inadmissible hearsay.
  • Minor-role reduction (Goitia): No clear error in denying U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 adjustment under the en banc framework of United States v. Rodriguez De Varon.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Class v. United States, 583 U.S. 174 (2018)

The panel relied on Class to confirm that a guilty plea does not bar a defendant from challenging the constitutionality of the statute of conviction on direct appeal. This allowed the court to reach the MDLEA constitutional arguments despite the defendants’ pleas.

United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024)

Alfonso was the decisive authority on the EEZ issue. The court applied Alfonso’s holding that “the EEZ is part of the ‘high seas’ for purposes of the Felonies Clause,” rejecting the argument that a foreign EEZ is a constitutionally off-limits zone for MDLEA prosecutions. Alfonso also provided the doctrinal foundation for rejecting attempts to use customary international law to narrow Congress’s Felonies Clause power.

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

The panel treated Canario-Vilomar as controlling on two points: (1) the MDLEA’s definition of “vessel without nationality”—including § 70502(d)(1)(C) (claimed nation neither confirms nor denies)—is not ultra vires; and (2) due process “nexus” challenges are “plainly foreclosed” in the Eleventh Circuit because universal and protective principles support the MDLEA’s extraterritorial reach.

United States v. Nunez, 1 F.4th 976 (11th Cir. 2021)

Nunez supplied the core statutory framing: the MDLEA prohibits drug possession with intent to distribute while aboard “a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” and the statute enumerates when such jurisdiction exists (including “vessels without nationality”).

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

Campbell was cited as part of the established circuit line rejecting due process arguments that would require a U.S. nexus for MDLEA prosecutions. The panel used it to reinforce that Goitia’s nexus theory was already settled against him.

Cabezas-Montano, 949 F.3d 567 (11th Cir. 2020)

The panel relied on Cabezas-Montano for two separate propositions:

  • Confrontation Clause: Introduction of a State Department certification to establish MDLEA jurisdiction does not violate the Confrontation Clause and is not inadmissible hearsay.
  • Minor-role analysis: In maritime courier cases, transporting a large quantity of narcotics and being essential to that transport supports denying a minor-role reduction.

United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182 (11th Cir. 2016)

Cruickshank reinforced (1) the Confrontation Clause/certification rule and (2) the deferential “clear error” standard for reviewing role determinations, emphasizing that appellate courts rarely disturb a sentencing court’s permissible view of the evidence.

United States v. Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc)

This was the controlling framework for Goitia’s U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 claim. The panel applied De Varon’s core instruction: a defendant’s mitigating role is assessed primarily against the relevant conduct for which he was held accountable, not against a broader uncharged conspiracy. The district court’s emphasis that Goitia was accountable only for the 386 kg aboard his vessel tracked De Varon.

United States v. Boyd, 291 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2002)

Boyd was used to emphasize the district court’s “considerable discretion” in deciding whether a mitigating role reduction applies.

United States v. Martin, 803 F.3d 581 (11th Cir. 2015)

The panel used Martin to limit the comparison group for role analysis to those involved in the defendant’s “relevant conduct” as attributed at sentencing—supporting rejection of Goitia’s attempt to compare himself to higher-level, uncharged organizers.

United States v. Valois, 915 F.3d 717 (11th Cir. 2019)

Valois reinforced that maritime crew members transporting large quantities of drugs are often properly denied minor-role reductions where the record supports that they were not substantially less culpable than the other participants in the relevant conduct.

Legal Reasoning

1) EEZ as “high seas” under the Felonies Clause

The court treated the constitutional question as settled by United States v. Alfonso: the Founding-era understanding of “high seas” began where territorial waters ended, and modern “special carveout zones” like the EEZ do not remove that area from “high seas” for Article I purposes. Because the defendants were outside territorial waters, the Felonies Clause supported Congress’s authority for MDLEA enforcement there.

2) Congress’s definitional authority under the MDLEA vs. customary international law

Sanchez and Rodriguez argued that § 70502(d)(1)(C) treats some vessels as “without nationality” even if international law would not. The panel, following Canario-Vilomar and Alfonso, rejected the premise that customary international law constrains Congress’s Felonies Clause power in this context. Thus, Congress may define “vessel without nationality” to include vessels for which a claimed registry nation neither confirms nor denies registration, and that definition can supply MDLEA jurisdiction.

3) No due process “minimum contacts” nexus required

Goitia’s due process claim failed because Eleventh Circuit precedent treats MDLEA drug trafficking on the high seas as a category where extraterritorial enforcement is justified without a case-specific U.S. nexus, relying on “universal and protective principles.” The panel cited United States v. Campbell and noted Canario-Vilomar described the argument as “plainly foreclosed.”

4) State Department certifications and the Confrontation Clause

The MDLEA provides that a foreign nation’s response (or lack of confirmation) is “proved conclusively by certification” of the Secretary of State. Goitia argued he could not meaningfully challenge the certification and that this violated confrontation rights. The panel applied Cabezas-Montano and United States v. Cruickshank, which hold such certifications are not testimonial evidence triggering Confrontation Clause protections in this setting and are not inadmissible hearsay.

5) Minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2

The district court’s reasoning tracked United States v. Rodriguez De Varon: Goitia was held accountable only for the cocaine on his vessel; he was one of three participants in the charged conduct; and his role as transporter of a large load was significant to the offense actually sentenced. The Eleventh Circuit found the denial supported by the record and therefore not clear error, citing Cabezas-Montano and Valois.

Impact

  • EEZ challenges further narrowed: This decision, though unpublished, exemplifies the post-Alfonso posture: within the Eleventh Circuit, the “EEZ is not high seas” argument is effectively unavailable in MDLEA cases outside territorial seas.
  • “Statelessness” challenges under § 70502(d)(1)(C) largely foreclosed: The ruling underscores that claims of nationality that are not “affirmatively and unequivocally” confirmed by the claimed nation can place vessels within the MDLEA’s “without nationality” category, without a successful “customary international law” limitation theory.
  • Nexus-based due process defenses remain nonstarters in this circuit: The opinion continues the Eleventh Circuit’s approach that MDLEA prosecutions need not show a U.S. connection where statutory jurisdiction exists.
  • Certifications remain potent jurisdiction proof: By relying on existing precedent, the court maintains that State Department certifications remain conclusive statutory proof and are insulated from Confrontation Clause attacks in this context.
  • Sentencing guidance for maritime couriers: The minor-role discussion reinforces that being a “mere courier” on a drug-laden vessel does not automatically translate into a § 3B1.2 reduction, particularly where the relevant conduct is limited to the load actually transported and the defendant is comparable to his crewmates.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • MDLEA: A federal statute criminalizing certain drug trafficking on the ocean when the vessel is subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
  • Felonies Clause: The Constitution’s grant of power to Congress “to define and punish” felonies “on the high Seas.” The Eleventh Circuit reads “high seas” to include the EEZ (but not another nation’s territorial waters).
  • EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone): A maritime zone extending up to 200 nautical miles from a coastal baseline where a coastal state has certain resource-related rights; it is not the same as “territorial sea.”
  • “Vessel without nationality” (MDLEA): A statutory category that can include a vessel where a claimed registry nation does not “affirmatively and unequivocally” confirm nationality, even if individuals claim that nationality.
  • Prior-panel-precedent rule: A later Eleventh Circuit panel must follow earlier panel decisions unless the Supreme Court or the Eleventh Circuit sitting en banc overrules them.
  • Due process “nexus” argument: A claim that the U.S. cannot prosecute conduct lacking a sufficient connection to the United States; rejected for MDLEA high-seas trafficking in this circuit.
  • Confrontation Clause: A Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against the accused; the circuit’s MDLEA cases treat State Department jurisdiction certifications as outside the Clause’s core protections in this setting.
  • Minor-role reduction (U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2): A sentencing decrease for defendants substantially less culpable than most other participants in the relevant conduct; under De Varon, the focus is the conduct actually attributed at sentencing.
  • Safety valve: A statutory mechanism (18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)) allowing sentences below mandatory minimums for qualifying defendants; applied here to sentence below 120 months.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the MDLEA convictions and Goitia’s sentence by applying—and expressly deeming controlling—its recent decisions holding (1) the EEZ falls within the “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes, and (2) Congress’s MDLEA jurisdictional definitions, including § 70502(d)(1)(C), are not constrained by customary international law. The court also reaffirmed two entrenched circuit rules in MDLEA litigation: no due process nexus is required, and State Department jurisdiction certifications do not violate the Confrontation Clause. On sentencing, the decision illustrates the continued strength of United States v. Rodriguez De Varon in limiting minor-role reductions for maritime transport defendants to those who can show they were substantially less culpable than others involved in the same relevant conduct.