United States v. Dávila-Reyes

84 F.4th 400

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jeffri DÁVILA-REYES, Defendant, Appellant.

United States of America, Appellee, v. José D. Reyes-Valdivia, Defendant, Appellant.

No. 16-2089

No. 16-2143

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

October 5, 2023

APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO, [Hon. Francisco A. Besosa, U.S. District Judge]

Raymond L. Sánchez-Maceira, for appellant Jeffri Dávila-Reyes.

Franco L. Pérez-Redondo, Assistant Federal Public Defender, with whom Eric Alexander Vos, Federal Public Defender, Vivianne M. Marrero-Torres, Assistant Federal Public Defender, and Kevin E. Lerman, Research & Writing Attorney, were on brief, for appellant José Reyes-Valdivia.

John M. Pellettieri, with whom Kenneth A. Polite, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Lisa H. Miller, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, W. Stephen Muldrow, United States Attorney, Mariana E. Bauzá-Almonte, Chief, Appellate Division, and David C. Bornstein, Assistant United States Attorney, were on brief, for appellee.

Before Barron, Chief Judge, Lynch, Lipez, Howard, Thompson, Kayatta, Gelpí, Montecalvo, Circuit Judges.

Opinion En Banc

BARRON, Chief Judge.

In these consolidated appeals, Jeffri Dávila-Reyes and José Reyes-Valdivia challenge their 2016 convictions for violating the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, 46 U.S.C. §§ 70501 et seq. ("MDLEA"), despite their having pleaded guilty unconditionally to the underlying charges. The charges were set forth in a single indictment that was handed up in the District of Puerto Rico in 2015. The indictment alleged that the defendants, each of whom is a national of Costa Rica, had violated the MDLEA by trafficking drugs "on the high seas ... and within the jurisdiction of this court" while on board a "covered vessel," 46 U.S.C. § 70503(a), which includes any "vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States," 46 U.S.C. § 70503(e)(1). The indictment alleged that the vessel was "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" because it was "without nationality." 46 U.S.C. § 70502(c)(1)(A).

A panel of this Court vacated the defendants' convictions and ordered the underlying charges dismissed. The panel did so based on the defendants' contention that Congress had no power under the Felonies Clause of the U.S. Constitution to criminalize their charged conduct because they were foreign nationals who were aboard a foreign vessel on the high seas at the time of that conduct. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 10 (granting Congress the power "[t]o define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations"). The defendants based their contention that the vessel was foreign on the ground that even if the vessel was "without nationality," 46 U.S.C. § 70502(c)(1)(A), for purposes of the MDLEA it was not stateless for purposes of international law. See United States v. Dávila-Reyes, 23 F.4th 153, 195 (1st Cir. 2022).

The government petitioned for rehearing en banc. We granted the petition and vacated the panel's ruling. We now affirm the defendants' convictions, albeit on narrow, record-based grounds that bypass many of the broader questions of international and federal constitutional law that the defendants ask us to resolve. Because those questions touch on sensitive issues of U.S. foreign relations and national power that have implications far beyond this specific statutory context, it is prudent for us to resolve them only in a case that, unlike this one, requires that we do so.

We do address, however, a threshold legal question about the MDLEA that itself has broad significance: Does 46 U.S.C. § 70503(e)(1), which establishes that a "vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" is a "covered vessel," limit the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts under Article III of the Constitution? See U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. We conclude, in accord with an earlier ruling of this Court, see United States v. González, 311 F.3d 440 (1st Cir. 2002), that § 70503(e)(1) does not set such a limit and that the provision instead merely limits the substantive reach of the MDLEA.

I.

A.

The MDLEA applies to drug trafficking on the high seas only if that conduct occurs aboard a "covered vessel." 46 U.S.C. § 70503(a). Section 70503(e)(1) provides that a "covered vessel" includes a "vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

A U.S. vessel is a "covered vessel." See 46 U.S.C. § 70503(e)(1). But § 70502(c)(1) provides in subsection (A) that a vessel is also "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" if it is "without nationality." Section 70502(d)(1) then states that:

the term "vessel without nationality" includes:

(A) a vessel aboard which the master or individual in charge makes a claim of registry that is denied by the nation whose registry is claimed;

(B) a vessel aboard which the master or individual in charge fails, on request of an officer of the United States authorized to enforce applicable provisions of United States law, to make a claim of nationality or registry for that vessel;

(C) a vessel aboard which the master or individual in charge makes a claim of registry and for which the claimed nation of registry does not affirmatively and unequivocally assert that the vessel is of its nationality[.]¹

B.

A criminal complaint from the District of Puerto Rico was issued against the defendants on November 9, 2015. It stated that the defendants were "in violation of Title 46, United States Code, Section 70503(a)(1), 70504(b)(1), and 70506(a) and (b)."² An affidavit from a law enforcement officer attached to the complaint recounted the following facts.

On or about October 29, 2015, a maritime patrol aircraft's crew identified a "go fast" vessel in international waters about 30 nautical miles southeast of San Andrés Island, Colombia. The crew reported observing persons on the vessel throwing packages and fuel barrels into the water.

The crew noted that a cloud of white powder was seen escaping from one of the packages. The crew "also observed what was believed to be a Costa Rica flag painted on the port bow of the go fast" vessel.

The United States Coast Guard dispatched a Boarding Team to intercept the vessel. The Boarding Team commenced "Right to Approach" questioning of the vessel's crew.

The vessel's master claimed that the vessel was of Costa Rican nationality. He did not provide the members of the Boarding Team any Costa Rican registration documents,³ and the Boarding Team did not identify any "further indicia of nationality."

The Boarding Team proceeded to contact the government of Costa Rica to inquire about the vessel. The government of Costa Rica was unable to "affirmatively and unequivocally assert," § 70502(d)(1)(C), that the vessel was registered with that country. The Boarding Team "determined" that the vessel was "without nationality."

The Boarding Team found trace amounts of cocaine after searching the vessel and arrested the three people on board -- specifically, the two defendants in these consolidated appeals, Dávila-Reyes and Reyes-Valdivia, and a third crew member. The three individuals were taken to the United States's military base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba before they were transported to Puerto Rico, where they were held pending charges.

C.

Dávila-Reyes, Reyes-Valdivia, and the third member of the vessel's crew were indicted in the District of Puerto Rico on November 23, 2015. The indictment charged each of the three crew members with two counts of violating the MDLEA while "on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, as defined in Title 46, United States Code, Section 70502(c)(1)(A)." The indictment did not further specify the ground for so deeming the vessel.

D.

Reyes-Valdivia moved on February 1, 2016, to dismiss the charges. The motion relied on various constitutional grounds.

Reyes-Valdivia's motion first contended that the charges must be dismissed because Congress lacked the power under the Felonies Clause to criminalize the underlying conduct. The motion argued that the Felonies Clause does not empower Congress to make it a crime for a foreign national to engage in drug trafficking outside the "territorial jurisdiction" of the United States while aboard a foreign vessel. The motion further contended that § 70502(d)(1)(C)'s definition of a "vessel without nationality" "extends jurisdiction over vessels that are not in fact stateless under international law, where the claimed nation of registry fails to unequivocally confirm registry." The motion then asserted that, "[b]ecause the MDLEA's statelessness provision is significantly broader than international law's concept of statelessness, the statute's assertion of jurisdiction over stateless vessels is an invalid exercise of Congress's Article I powers" in that it extends the reach of the MDLEA to persons who are aboard vessels on the high seas that are foreign rather than stateless for purposes of international law.

The motion separately contended that the charges must be dismissed pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. V. The motion argued that § 70502(d)(1)(A) and § 70502(d)(1)(C) are void for vagueness because neither provision explains the steps that a nation must take either to "den[y]" or "affirmatively and unequivocally assert that the vessel is of its nationality."

The motion also took aim at the charges for two additional reasons under the Due Process Clause. First, the motion contended that the indictment violated the Due Process Clause because the MDLEA does not require the government to bear the burden of affirmatively proving that the vessel in question was stateless under international law. Second, the motion contended that the indictment violated the Due Process Clause because it did not allege the drugs that the defendants were charged with trafficking were "destined for the United States" and so did not allege...