933 F.3d 121
2d Cir.2019Background
- Coast Guard intercepted a high‑speed "go‑fast" vessel ~300 nautical miles off Central America; boarding found ~680 kg cocaine and three defendants as sole occupants.
- Government's evidence at the pretrial §70504 hearing consisted mainly of a DHS task‑force detective’s affidavit and Coast Guard video/photos; vessel reportedly had no registration documents and no flag seen in the affidavit, though defendants asserted an Ecuadorian flag image appeared on the hull.
- Coast Guard did not ask the master/person in charge to claim a nationality, did not contact any foreign registry to verify claims, and later burned and sank the vessel after removing cargo and persons.
- District court held the vessel was stateless and thus "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" under the MDLEA; defendants later pleaded guilty and were sentenced, then appealed.
- Second Circuit vacated convictions and dismissed the indictment because the government failed to establish statelessness under the MDLEA’s procedures and the guilty pleas were procedurally defective under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11.
Issues
| Issue | Government's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the MDLEA requirement that a vessel be “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” limits federal courts’ subject‑matter jurisdiction or merely defines the statute’s extraterritorial reach | Government argued the MDLEA’s jurisdictional showing is a preliminary merits question about the statute’s reach (not subject‑matter jurisdiction) and failing proof can be waived by a guilty plea | Defendants argued that the requirement is jurisdictional (court’s power) so failure cannot be waived and can be raised at any time | Court held the phrase governs the statute’s reach (legislative/prescriptive jurisdiction), not federal courts’ subject‑matter jurisdiction; §3231 supplies jurisdiction to hear federal crimes |
| Whether the government satisfied §70502(d)/(e) procedures to prove the vessel was "without nationality" (stateless) | Gov relied on lack of visible registry/flag and the defendants’ failure to volunteer registry to infer statelessness | Defendants pointed to video evidence showing an Ecuadorian flag image and to the government’s failure to follow statute‑required steps (ask for a claim and, if claimed, verify with the foreign registry) | Held government failed to follow statutory steps (did not request a claim; did not seek registry verification) and destroyed the vessel, making proof impossible; evidence was legally insufficient to establish statelessness |
| Whether guilty pleas waived the jurisdictional‑reach challenge despite the government’s failure of proof | Government contended guilty pleas waive all defects except lack of court jurisdiction | Defendants contended pleas were defective and Rule 11 violations preserve challenge; also argued subject‑matter jurisdiction defect would be unwaivable | Court held pleas were defective for Rule 11 failures (court did not inform defendants of, or establish, the jurisdictional requirement/factual basis re: statelessness); therefore convictions vacated and indictment dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (statutory limitations are jurisdictional only if Congress clearly says so)
- Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (U.S. 2010) (determining a statute’s extraterritorial reach is a merits question, not subject‑matter jurisdiction)
- United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (U.S. 1995) (elements of an offense must be submitted to the jury)
- United States v. Gonzalez, 311 F.3d 440 (1st Cir. 2002) (MDLEA’s jurisdictional language defines statutory reach rather than court jurisdiction)
- United States v. Miranda, 780 F.3d 1185 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (concluded MDLEA jurisdictional language limits court jurisdiction; discussed and rejected by Second Circuit)
- United States v. Bustos‑Useche, 273 F.3d 622 (5th Cir. 2001) (treated MDLEA jurisdictional issue as nonwaivable subject‑matter jurisdiction)
- United States v. Tinoco, 304 F.3d 1088 (11th Cir. 2002) (discussed MDLEA jurisdictional element and court’s role)
- United States v. De La Garza, 516 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2008) (assumed prior precedent on jurisdictional question but avoided deciding it)