United States v. Carlington Cruickshank
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17169
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- In Feb 2014 the U.S. Coast Guard interdicted the vessel Venus on the high seas and recovered ~171 kg of cocaine; two men aboard included Carlington Cruickshank. Cruickshank was convicted and sentenced to 324 months for (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute ≥5 kg of cocaine aboard a vessel (MDLEA) and (2) aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute ≥5 kg of cocaine aboard a vessel.
- Evidence: co-defendant Acosta testified Cruickshank agreed to transport drugs, programmed GPS waypoints for the Colombia→Jamaica voyage, suggested cover stories, participated in evasive actions when the Coast Guard approached, and later claimed to be in charge; Coast Guard found hidden kilogram packages and drug-detection scan positive.
- Procedural posture: Cruickshank appealed raising (1) lack of MDLEA jurisdiction / MDLEA unconstitutional; (2) insufficient mens rea; (3) improper use of State Department certification and removal of jurisdictional fact from jury (Confrontation Clause / Alleyne); and (4) denial of a minor-role Guidelines reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b).
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed convictions and rejected constitutional and mens rea challenges based on binding precedent, but vacated and remanded for resentencing on the minor-role issue.
- The court held the State Department certification did not implicate the Confrontation Clause and that MDLEA jurisdiction is a preliminary legal question for the judge (not a jury) under controlling precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Cruickshank's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/extraterritorial reach of MDLEA; jurisdiction over stateless vessels | MDLEA exceeded Felonies Clause authority and is unconstitutional | MDLEA valid under Felonies Clause; prior precedent upholds extraterritorial application and no U.S. nexus required | Rejected — bound by Campbell and other precedent; MDLEA constitutional and jurisdiction proper |
| Sufficiency of evidence of mens rea for conspiracy and aiding-and-abetting | Insufficient evidence to prove knowing possession and intent to distribute | Testimony (Acosta), GPS programming, evasive actions, false statements, and discovery of 171 kg support knowing possession and intent | Rejected — evidence sufficient for convictions beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Use of State Department certification & removal of jurisdictional fact from jury (Confrontation Clause / Alleyne) | Certification is testimonial hearsay implicating Confrontation Clause; jurisdictional facts must be jury-decided post-Alleyne | Certification does not affect guilt; MDLEA treats jurisdiction as preliminary legal question for the judge | Rejected — certification does not violate Confrontation Clause; jurisdiction is not an element and judge decides it per Tinoco and §70504(a) |
| Denial of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) minor-role reduction | Cruickshank was less culpable (did not load drugs, attend planning, or finance operation) and should receive reduction | Quantity, voyage danger, role in navigation/GPS, evasive conduct, and being one of two persons aboard show significant culpability | Vacated & remanded — district court erred by over-emphasizing drug quantity; must reassess minor-role claim under De Varon, Amendment 794, and totality of circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Campbell, 743 F.3d 802 (11th Cir.) (upholding MDLEA extraterritorial application and that Due Process and Confrontation challenges fail)
- United States v. Tinoco, 304 F.3d 1088 (11th Cir. 2002) (MDLEA jurisdiction is a preliminary legal question for the judge, not an element for the jury)
- United States v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930 (11th Cir. en banc) (framework for assessing minor-role reductions under § 3B1.2)
- United States v. Beckles, 565 F.3d 832 (11th Cir. 2009) (standard for sufficiency-of-the-evidence review)
- United States v. Camacho, 233 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2000) (elements for possession with intent to distribute and aiding-and-abetting)
- United States v. Cruz-Valdez, 773 F.2d 1541 (11th Cir. 1985) (factors for vessel-based narcotics convictions)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be found by jury)
- Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002) (prior rule on judicial factfinding later overruled)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (mandatory-minimum–increasing facts must be found by a jury)