MDLEA Reach Confirmed: EEZ as “High Seas,” No Nexus Requirement, and Broad Stateless-Vessel Jurisdiction

1. Introduction

United States v. Rodolfo Rodriguez Vazquez (consolidated with appeals by Jose Manuel Leon Marin and Stanley Javier Cabrera) is an Eleventh Circuit, non-argument, per curiam disposition affirming convictions under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a)(1), 70506(b), for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine on the high seas.

The case arose from a 2022 Coast Guard interdiction of a vessel “bearing no indicia of nationality” approximately 111 miles off the Dominican Republic. The vessel’s master (Leon-Marin) claimed Venezuelan nationality; Venezuela “could neither confirm nor deny” the vessel’s nationality. The Coast Guard treated the craft as “without nationality” under 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(C), recovered 23 bales (575 kg) of cocaine, arrested the crew, and brought them to the United States for prosecution.

The appeals presented two clusters of issues:

Constitutional and jurisdictional attacks on MDLEA application (Felonies Clause authority; customary international law; exclusive economic zone; nexus to the United States; and whether the nationality claim satisfied the statute).
Sentencing challenges by Vazquez and Cabrera, contesting denial of a “minor participant” reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b).

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed across the board. On the legal challenges, the court held that its existing precedent foreclosed each argument: (i) a foreign nation’s exclusive economic zone qualifies as “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes; (ii) customary international law does not limit Congress’s Felonies Clause power to define “stateless vessel” for MDLEA jurisdiction; (iii) MDLEA prosecutions need not show a “nexus” to the United States; and (iv) “nationality” and “registry” are treated interchangeably under § 70502.

On sentencing, the court held the district court did not clearly err in denying Vazquez and Cabrera minor-role reductions because they knowingly participated in transporting a very large quantity of cocaine, performed a critical function, were held accountable only for that conduct, and stood to receive substantial compensation.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

A notable feature of the opinion is its explicit reliance on prior Eleventh Circuit decisions to dispose of multiple recurring MDLEA challenges. The panel frames the case as one governed by settled circuit law.

1) Constitutional/MDLEA jurisdiction line of cases

United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2706 (2025)
Use in this case: Alfonso is cited for the proposition that a nation’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) “is part of the ‘high seas’ for purposes of the Felonies Clause.” That holding directly defeats the smugglers’ argument that operating in the Dominican Republic’s EEZ placed them outside Congress’s power to punish “Felonies committed on the high Seas.” By treating the EEZ as “high seas” for this constitutional inquiry, Alfonso removes the geographic limitation the appellants sought.
United States v. Canario-Vilomar, 128 F.4th 1374, 1381 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, No. 25-5506 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2025)
Use in this case: Canario-Vilomar is invoked to reject the argument that the MDLEA’s definition of “vessel without nationality” must track customary international law. The panel quotes the key principle: because the Felonies Clause is “not limited by customary international law,” “international law cannot limit Congress’s authority to define ‘stateless vessel’” for MDLEA purposes. This precedent is decisive against the challenge to 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(C) (treating a vessel as stateless when the claimed nation of registry fails to corroborate the claim).
United States v. Cabezas-Montano, 949 F.3d 567 (11th Cir. 2020) (including its citation to United States v. Campbell, 743 F.3d 802 (11th Cir. 2014))
Use in this case: Cabezas-Montano supplies two critical propositions. First, it is cited for standards of review (de novo review for jurisdiction, statutory interpretation, and constitutionality; clear error for role reduction). Second—and more substantively—it is cited for the holding that the MDLEA “is a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Felonies Clause as applied to drug trafficking crimes without a ‘nexus’ to the United States,” relying on Campbell. This forecloses the appellants’ late-raised due process/Felonies Clause “no nexus” argument.
United States v. Gruezo, 66 F.4th 1284 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 178 (2023)
Use in this case: Gruezo is used in two ways. On jurisdiction, it rejects the argument that the master’s claim of “nationality” (as opposed to “registry”) fails the statutory requirement, because the MDLEA “treats the terms ‘nationality’ and ‘registry’ as interchangeable throughout [section] 70502.” On sentencing, Gruezo is cited for the defendant’s burden of proof on minor role and as an example where denial of a role reduction was affirmed in comparable smuggling circumstances.

2) Minor role reduction framework and applications

United States v. Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc)
Use in this case: Rodriguez De Varon provides the governing analytical framework for U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2: (i) compare the defendant to the relevant conduct for which he was held accountable, and (ii) compare him to other participants in that relevant conduct. The panel also emphasizes De Varon’s recognition that couriers and transporters can play “an important or essential role,” especially where the quantity is large.
United States v. Valois, 915 F.3d 717 (11th Cir. 2019)
Use in this case: Valois is cited as part of the Eleventh Circuit’s repeated pattern of affirming denial of minor-role reductions to maritime drug smugglers performing indispensable transportation functions.
United States v. Cabezas-Montano, 949 F.3d 567 (11th Cir. 2020) and United States v. Gruezo, 66 F.4th 1284 (11th Cir.)
Use in this case: These cases reinforce that denial of minor role is often affirmed where the defendant is entrusted with a large load and is integral to moving the drugs, even if higher-level organizers exist.

B. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeds in a deliberately hierarchical manner: it first identifies the appellants’ arguments, then treats them as already decided by binding circuit precedent, and finally applies those holdings to the facts of interdiction and sentencing.

1) MDLEA constitutionality and jurisdiction

The appellants’ principal strategy was to narrow Congress’s power under the Felonies Clause and to narrow the MDLEA’s jurisdictional reach by importing customary international law constraints and by insisting on territorial limits (EEZ not “high seas”) and a U.S. nexus requirement.

The panel does not re-litigate those questions. Instead, it treats them as settled:

Geography (EEZ): Under United States v. Alfonso, the EEZ is treated as “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes, so the location “about 111 miles off” the Dominican Republic does not place the prosecution beyond Congress’s constitutional authority.
Statelessness definition: Under United States v. Canario-Vilomar, customary international law does not cabin Congress’s authority to define statelessness in the MDLEA. Thus, § 70502(d)(1)(C) remains a valid jurisdictional hook where the claimed nation “could neither confirm nor deny.”
No-nexus prosecutions: Under United States v. Cabezas-Montano and United States v. Campbell, the government need not prove that the conduct had a specific nexus to the United States; MDLEA jurisdiction can attach based on the vessel’s status and location.
Nationality vs. registry: Under United States v. Gruezo, the MDLEA’s statutory references treat “nationality” and “registry” interchangeably, defeating the new argument that the Coast Guard received the “wrong kind” of claim from the vessel master.

The practical effect is that the court affirms both (i) the constitutional validity of applying the MDLEA in these circumstances and (ii) the district court’s exercise of adjudicative authority over the case.

2) Minor role reductions under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2

Vazquez and Cabrera sought a two-level “minor participant” reduction. The panel’s affirmance rests on a familiar Eleventh Circuit logic in maritime drug cases:

They knowingly transported a very large load (575 kg).
Their transport role was critical to the criminal venture’s success.
They were held accountable for only that conduct, aligning the “relevant conduct” comparison under United States v. Rodriguez De Varon.
They stood to receive substantial compensation (one million Dominican pesos), supporting the Guidelines factor concerning “the degree to which the defendant stood to benefit.”

The panel also endorses the district court’s skepticism of speculative mitigation arguments—i.e., that there were “undoubtedly” others in the conspiracy—when the defendants did not produce concrete evidence showing they were “substantially less culpable” than other participants in their relevant conduct.

C. Impact

Although designated “NOT FOR PUBLICATION” (and thus not binding precedent in the same way as published opinions), the decision matters as a signal of how the Eleventh Circuit will continue to handle recurring MDLEA arguments:

Foreclosure of common MDLEA defenses: The opinion underscores that several popular lines of attack (EEZ not high seas; customary international law limits statelessness definitions; due process requires a U.S. nexus; nationality vs. registry semantics) are not merely weak—they are treated as categorically resolved by circuit precedent.
Operational clarity for interdictions: By reaffirming § 70502(d)(1)(C) treatment where the claimed nation “could neither confirm nor deny,” the decision reinforces a workable rule for Coast Guard interdiction scenarios involving unverifiable nationality claims.
Sentencing trend for maritime transporters: The decision fits a consistent pattern: crew members entrusted with very large quantities and paid meaningful sums often fail to qualify for minor-role reductions, absent strong individualized evidence of markedly lesser culpability within the relevant conduct group.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

MDLEA: A federal statute allowing U.S. prosecution of certain drug trafficking offenses committed on vessels in international waters (and, under Eleventh Circuit doctrine, including EEZ contexts), when the vessel is subject to U.S. jurisdiction (including “stateless” vessels as defined by the Act).
Felonies Clause (U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 10): Grants Congress power to punish “Felonies committed on the high Seas.” The Eleventh Circuit has read this power broadly in the MDLEA setting.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): A maritime zone beyond a coastal nation’s territorial sea where the coastal nation has certain resource-related rights. In this circuit’s Felonies Clause analysis, the EEZ can still be treated as “high seas.”
“Vessel without nationality” (stateless vessel): Under 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(C), a vessel can be treated as stateless when the master claims a nationality and the claimed nation does not affirmatively corroborate it. In this case, Venezuela could neither confirm nor deny.
Nexus requirement: Some legal regimes require proof that foreign conduct has a connection to the prosecuting country. The Eleventh Circuit has held the MDLEA does not require a specific U.S. nexus for these offenses.
Minor participant (U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2): A sentencing reduction for defendants substantially less culpable than average participants. Courts apply a fact-specific inquiry, but in large-load smuggling cases, being a paid transporter can still be considered “essential,” making the reduction difficult to obtain without strong comparative proof.

5. Conclusion

This consolidated Eleventh Circuit decision affirms MDLEA convictions and sentences by applying a tight chain of circuit authority: the EEZ counts as “high seas” for Felonies Clause purposes; customary international law does not limit Congress’s MDLEA jurisdictional definitions; no U.S. nexus is required; and “nationality” and “registry” are interchangeable within § 70502. On sentencing, it reinforces that maritime transporters entrusted with massive drug quantities and promised substantial compensation commonly will not qualify as minor participants absent concrete evidence showing markedly lesser culpability in the relevant conduct.