United States v. Sosa-Egas, 8:21-cr-00221

A U.S.-registered Cessna (N69355) flew from Aruba to Honduras on March 30, 2021; Honduran forces intercepted it and seized ~272 kg of cocaine.
Only one person (Christian Samuel Lopez Perez) was aboard when seized; Lopez was arrested in Honduras.
Jaime Alfredo Sosa-Egas (Ecuadorian commercial pilot) was indicted in the Middle District of Florida on July 13, 2021 for conspiracy, distribution, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine while on a U.S.-registered aircraft.
Sosa-Egas was detained by Mexican authorities in Mexico City on July 20, 2021, placed on a flight to Orlando, and arrested on arrival; he was later transported to Tampa.
Sosa-Egas moved to dismiss the indictment for improper venue and for lack of extraterritorial jurisdiction under 21 U.S.C. § 959(c); the Government opposed.
The Court denied the motion: it found the indictment’s venue allegations sufficient under 18 U.S.C. § 3238 (pretrial venue challenge improper), and adopted persuasive circuit authority that § 959 applies extraterritorially to possession-with-intent offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Venue	Venue is proper under 18 U.S.C. § 3238 because defendant was arrested in Orlando (Middle District of Florida)	No relevant conduct occurred in the Middle District; indictment’s Miami registration does not fix venue; pretrial dismissal appropriate	Denied — indictment alleges offenses “in the Middle District of Florida and elsewhere”; pretrial venue fact issues reserved for jury; dismissal denied (case kept in Tampa for convenience)
Extraterritorial jurisdiction under 21 U.S.C. § 959(c)	§ 959 reaches extraterritorial possession-with-intent conduct (Government relies on circuit authority)	§ 959 does not permit extraterritorial reach for possession-with-intent (relies on Thompson)	Denied — Court finds persuasive precedent holding § 959 applies extraterritorially to possession-with-intent offenses and rejects defendant’s argument

United States v. Ruiz-Murillo, [citation="736 F. App'x 812"] (11th Cir. 2018) (pretrial venue challenges are generally improper and reserved for the jury)
United States v. Snipes, 611 F.3d 855 (11th Cir. 2010) (same principle on facially valid indictments and venue)
United States v. Thompson, 921 F.3d 263 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (held § 959 did not reach extraterritorial possession argument relied on by defendant)
United States v. Epskamp, 832 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2016) (held § 959 applies extraterritorially to possession-with-intent offenses)
United States v. Lawrence, 727 F.3d 386 (5th Cir. 2013) (same conclusion on § 959’s extraterritorial application)