United States v. Jhon Jairo Valencia Saac
632 F.3d 1203
11th Cir.2011Background
- Four co-defendants challenge the constitutionality of the Drug Trafficking Vessel Interdiction Act of 2008 (DTVIA) after pleading guilty to conspiratorial violations; sentences are 108 months each, concurrent with three years of supervised release.
- Defendants were observed on a semi-submersible vessel without nationality in international waters; vessel sank after defendants jumped overboard and were recovered by Coast Guard.
- The government indicted defendants on conspiracy to operate a submersible vessel without nationality and on operating the vessel without nationality with intent to evade detection; DTVIA prohibits such conduct with penalties up to 15 years imprisonment.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the indictment as unconstitutional; the district court denied, ruling § 2285 constitutional; defendants then pled guilty unconditionally.
- At sentencing, the district court did not apply any offense-specific guideline due to absence of a promulgated DTVIA guideline at the time, instead using 3553(a) factors; 108-month terms were imposed.
- On appeal, the district court’s rulings on sentencing issues to be attached to the PSI are challenged, and the court remands on that procedural matter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether guilty pleas preclude challenges to constitutionality | Guilty pleas admit elements; non-jurisdictional challenges are waived. | Constitutionality is a jurisdictional issue not waived by a guilty plea. | Constitutionality preserved; claims addressed on the merits. |
| Constitutionality of DTVIA under High Seas Clause | DTVIA falls within Congress’s High Seas Clause power; universal condemnation justifies extraterritorial reach. | DTVIA lacks necessary nexus and exceeds constitutional authority. | DTVIA upheld under High Seas Clause; no nexus requirement adopted. |
| Procedural and substantive reasonableness of sentences | District court properly used 3553(a) factors; no error in non-use of an unpromulgated guideline. | Courts should apply the most analogous or applicable guideline (2X5.1/2X7.1/2X7.2) and downward departures for alienage were improper. | Sentences affirmed as reasonable; no procedural error; no reversible substantive error for Meneses. |
| Requirement to attach district court rulings to the PSI under Rule 32(i)(3)(C) | Rule 32 requires attachments; noncompliance is remediable. | Failure to attach is a ministerial error with limited remedy. | Remand for attachment of rulings to PSI; merits not revisited. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonilla v. United States, 579 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2009) (guilty pleas generally waive non-jurisdictional challenges)
- United States v. Tomeny, 144 F.3d 749 (11th Cir. 1998) (jurisdictional challenges survive a guilty plea)
- United States v. Brown, 586 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 2009) (jurisdictional challenge not waived by guilty plea)
- United States v. Palacios-Casquete, 55 F.3d 557 (11th Cir. 1995) (intentional challenges to statute survive guilty plea)
- Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968) (constitutionality challenged at district court)
- United States v. Suerte, 291 F.3d 366 (5th Cir. 2002) (High Seas Clause may reach offenses outside U.S. territorial waters)
- United States v. Palmer, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 610 (1818) (piracy power extends to aliens; no U.S. nexus requirement stated)
- United States v. Estupinan, 453 F.3d 1336 (11th Cir. 2006) (MDLEA extraterritorial reach permissible; no nexus required)
- United States v. Martinez-Hidalgo, 993 F.2d 1052 (3d Cir. 1993) (universal condemnation supports extraterritorial reach)
- United States v. Gonzalez, 776 F.2d 931 (11th Cir. 1985) (protective principle justification for extraterritorial jurisdiction)
- United States v. Maung, 320 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2003) (alienage collateral consequences cannot drive downward departure)
- United States v. Keene, 470 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2006) (guidelines-404 analysis when no specific guideline exists)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (requirement to explain reasons for sentence under Gall)
- United States v. McBride, 511 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2007) (deference to district court's 3553(a) balancing)