United States v. Aybar-Ulloa, 913 F.3d 47

Background

In August 2013, Aybar was found aboard a small, "stateless" vessel in international waters carrying numerous packages later tested positive for cocaine; he and others claimed Dominican citizenship.
A foreign warship (HMS Lancaster) launched a visit; law enforcement determined the vessel was without nationality, boarded it, transferred Aybar to HMS Lancaster, then to a U.S. Coast Guard vessel and to Puerto Rico.
Aybar was indicted under the MDLEA for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine on a vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction (stateless vessel = vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction under the MDLEA). He pleaded guilty in 2015.
Aybar moved to dismiss pre-plea, arguing Congress lacked Article I authority (Define and Punish Clause) to criminalize his purely foreign conduct absent a U.S. nexus; the district court denied the motion.
On appeal the First Circuit reviewed de novo and concluded prior circuit precedent (notably United States v. Victoria and Cardales) foreclosed Aybar’s international-law premised challenge, affirming convictions; but it vacated and remanded for resentencing under Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines.

Issues

Issue	Aybar's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Congress lacked Article I power (Define and Punish Clause) to criminalize Aybar’s conduct on a stateless vessel absent a U.S. nexus	The Define and Punish Clause (piracies, law of nations, felonies) does not authorize criminalizing drug trafficking on the high seas without a U.S. nexus; international law does not treat drug trafficking as a universal offense	MDLEA is a valid exercise of Article I power; prior circuit precedent and international-law principles allow the U.S. to treat stateless vessels as subject to U.S. jurisdiction and to prosecute drug offenses	Conviction affirmed: circuit precedent (Victoria, Cardales) establishes international-law basis to treat stateless vessels as subject to U.S. jurisdiction, defeating Aybar’s as-applied constitutional challenge
Whether Aybar’s plea foreclosed his constitutional challenge on appeal	Aybar relied on Class v. United States to argue the plea did not bar collateral challenge to statutory authority	Government argued plea colloquy concession waived challenge	Court held plea did not foreclose the constitutional challenge; review was permitted and conducted de novo
Whether the district court erred in denying a 2-level minor-participant reduction under U.S.S.G. §3B1.2(b)	Aybar argued five Amendment 794 factors established he was a minor participant	Government argued the 2014 Guidelines (in effect at sentencing) did not include those factors and the reduction was not warranted	Sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing so the district court can apply Amendment 794 per Sarmiento-Palacios
Whether remand for resentencing is required despite government’s claim the result would be the same	Aybar asked for resentencing under clarified Guidelines; government contended denial would be the same even applying Amendment 794	Court found it prudent to let district court apply the clarified Guidelines, as Sarmiento-Palacios required	Sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Victoria, 876 F.2d 1009 (1st Cir. 1989) (held international law permits the U.S. to treat stateless vessels as its own and to prosecute drug offenses on them)
United States v. Cardales-Luna, 632 F.3d 731 (1st Cir. 2011) (Torruella, J., dissent) (argued piracy/law-of-nations limitations and urged nexus requirement; dissent relied on by Aybar)
United States v. Cardales, 168 F.3d 548 (1st Cir. 1999) (upheld MDLEA application and relied on protective-principle reasoning to reject nexus/due-process challenge)
United States v. Smith, 680 F.2d 255 (1st Cir. 1982) (discussed authority to treat stateless vessels as U.S. for jurisdictional purposes)
United States v. Sarmiento-Palacios, 885 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2018) (held Amendment 794 clarifies intent and applies retroactively; vacated and remanded for resentencing)
Class v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 798 (2018) (Supreme Court decision limiting plea-based forfeiture of certain statutory challenges, relied on to permit Aybar’s appeal)