84 F.4th 400
1st Cir.2023Background
- Two Costa Rican nationals (Dávila-Reyes and Reyes-Valdivia) were detained after a U.S. Coast Guard boarding of a "go-fast" vessel ~30 nm SE of San Andrés; the master claimed Costa Rican nationality but produced no registration and Costa Rica could not confirm registry.
- Government treated the boat as a "vessel without nationality" under 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(C) and indicted the defendants under the MDLEA; each pleaded guilty unconditionally and adopted the Government's Version of the Facts.
- The defendants later appealed, arguing (inter alia) that Congress lacked power under the Felonies Clause to criminalize their conduct unless the vessel was stateless under international law, and that certain MDLEA provisions are vague or otherwise unconstitutional.
- A three-judge panel initially vacated convictions (relying on limits of the Felonies Clause and concluding § 70502(d)(1)(C) could not by itself render a vessel stateless under international law); the government sought rehearing en banc.
- The en banc First Circuit affirmed the convictions on narrower, record-based grounds: it held § 70503(e)(1) limits only the MDLEA's substantive scope (not Article III jurisdiction), rejected defendants' preserved and forfeited challenges under applicable standards (de novo for preserved, plain error for forfeited), and concluded the record and plea admissions permitted alternative statutory bases for deeming the vessel "without nationality."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 46 U.S.C. § 70503(e)(1) limits federal courts' Article III subject-matter jurisdiction | §70503(e)(1)'s reference to being "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" is jurisdictional and therefore non-waivable; court must review de novo | The phrase governs the MDLEA's substantive reach (regulatory jurisdiction over vessels), not courts' Article III jurisdiction; Arbaugh framework controls | Held: §70503(e)(1) is substantive (scope of MDLEA), not an Article III jurisdictional limitation (González reaffirmed) |
| Whether unconditional guilty pleas waived the defendants' constitutional challenges (Class v. United States) | Class protects challenges to a statute's constitutionality that question the government's power to prosecute; defendants can raise such claims despite unconditional pleas | Government: Class is narrow; many claims are as-applied or contradict plea admissions and thus waived; forfeited claims reviewed for plain error | Held: Class does not automatically save all claims; preserved claims review de novo; claims not raised below are reviewed for plain error and fail here |
| Whether §70502(d)(1)(C) may be the sole basis to deem a vessel stateless under international law (Felonies Clause issue) | §70502(d)(1)(C) (failure of claimed flag state to "affirmatively and unequivocally assert" nationality) is broader than international-law statelessness; Congress lacks Felonies Clause power to criminalize conduct that international law doesn't permit | Government: Plea admissions (no paperwork, no indicia, Costa Rica couldn't confirm registry) and other statutory/ common-law bases (per Matos-Luchi) independently support that the vessel was "without nationality" and stateless under international law | Held: On the record and under applicable review standards, defendants failed to show §70502(d)(1)(C) was the sole necessary basis or that Matos-Luchi-grounded theory was clearly erroneous; Felonies-Clause challenge fails |
| Whether government "switched" jurisdictional theories (waiver/contract/plea-agreement issue) and thus cannot invoke alternative bases on appeal | Government consistently relied on §70502(d)(1)(C) to obtain pleas and cannot later defend convictions on other theories it did not invoke to secure the pleas | Government: Indictment and plea agreements cited the more general §70502(c)(1)(A); factual admissions in pleas preserved alternative bases; government never expressly waived other theories | Held: Court rejects claim of binding waiver; it reads the indictment and plea materials as permitting alternative statutory bases (so no unfair "jurisdiction switching") and therefore allows government to proffer Matos-Luchi-based defenses on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. González, 311 F.3d 440 (1st Cir. 2002) (§70503(e)(1) construed as limiting MDLEA's substantive scope, not Article III jurisdiction)
- United States v. Matos-Luchi, 627 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (discusses when a vessel lacks nationality; courts may consider lack of flag/papers and sustainability of oral claims)
- Class v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 798 (2018) (an unconditional guilty plea does not necessarily bar a direct appeal that challenges the government's constitutional power to prosecute)
- United States v. Aybar-Ulloa, 987 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2021) (Felonies Clause allows Congress to criminalize conduct by foreign nationals on truly stateless vessels under international law)
- United States v. Miranda, 780 F.3d 1185 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (concluded MDLEA's jurisdictional phrase is jurisdictional for courts; argued for non-waivability)
- Prado v. United States, 933 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2019) (reviewed post-González authorities and sided with González that MDLEA text is substantive, not jurisdictional)