United States v. Trinidad
839 F.3d 112
1st Cir.
2016

Background

  • In Sept. 2014 Persis Trinidad and Algemiro Coa-Peña were intercepted ~80 nm south of Isla Beata on a 30-ft unmarked "go-fast" boat; ~145 kg of cocaine found onboard.
  • Coast Guard contacted Colombia; Colombia could neither confirm nor deny registry, so U.S. treated the vessel as stateless under the MDLEA and boarded it.
  • Trinidad pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine under the MDLEA and admitted he and Coa-Peña took turns steering and that they "set sail ... utilizing Global Positioning Devices."
  • Probation recommended a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(3)(C) (pilot/captain/navigator enhancement); Trinidad objected, saying he merely steered and did not operate the GPS.
  • District Court applied both the safety-valve reduction and the two-level navigator enhancement and sentenced Trinidad to 108 months; the First Circuit affirmed the enhancement on appeal.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether § 2D1.1(b)(3)(C) enhancement applies because Trinidad "acted as a navigator" Gov't: Trinidad steered part of the voyage, relied on GPS, and thus acted as a navigator Trinidad: he only took turns steering and did not operate or program the GPS—so was not a navigator Court: Affirmed—steering while relying on GPS during an ocean voyage suffices to "act as a navigator"
Whether reliance on pre-programmed GPS qualifies as navigation Gov't: using instrumentation to maintain course is navigation Trinidad: navigation requires programming/adjusting instruments or directing course to destination Court: Rejected defendant’s narrow reading; relying on GPS to keep course constitutes navigation
Whether subordinate status or lack of ultimate authority precludes enhancement Gov't: enhancement covers anyone who "acts as" navigator, regardless of rank Trinidad: he was subordinate and lacked ultimate responsibility Court: Rejected—subordinate status does not preclude enhancement when one acts as navigator
Jurisdictional challenge based on vessel nationality/statelessness (dissent) Majority: parties did not challenge vessel’s stateless determination; MDLEA jurisdiction assumed Trinidad (dissent): Colombia’s non-committal response shouldn’t permit U.S. to declare the vessel stateless; applying U.S. law retroactively raises jurisdictional/due-process concerns Court (majority): declined to revisit statelessness; affirmed enhancement; dissent would have questioned MDLEA jurisdiction and definition/application of statelessness

Key Cases Cited

  • United States v. Lopez, 299 F.3d 84 (1st Cir. 2002) (standard of review: legal interpretation de novo, factual findings for clear error)
  • United States v. Cruz-Mendez, 811 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2016) (application of "pilot" enhancement does not depend on formal training)
  • United States v. Cartwright, 413 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2005) (assessing defendant's onboard actions, not training, for "captain" enhancement)
  • United States v. Guerrero, 114 F.3d 332 (1st Cir. 1997) (enhancement scope not limited to persons with special authority)
  • United States v. Saxena, 229 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000) (plea-agreement waiver principles)
  • United States v. Ocasio-Cancel, 727 F.3d 85 (1st Cir. 2013) (sources for factual record after guilty plea)
  • United States v. Bravo, 489 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007) (MDLEA jurisdictional precedents discussed in dissent)
  • United States v. Matos-Luchi, 627 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (context on small vessels and maritime practice)
  • United States v. Perlaza, 439 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2006) (when statelessness is factual, jury resolution may be required)
  • United States v. Cardales-Luna, 632 F.3d 731 (1st Cir. 2011) (discussing MDLEA statelessness and related dissenting concerns)
  • United States v. Cardales, 168 F.3d 548 (1st Cir. 1999) (examples of foreign responses to registry inquiries taking several days)
  • United States v. Greer, 285 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2002) (jurisdictional element of MDLEA may be raised before trial)
  • United States v. Bustos-Useche, 273 F.3d 622 (5th Cir. 2001) (timing for consenting to U.S. law and jurisdictional issues)
  • United States v. Moreno-Morillo, 334 F.3d 819 (9th Cir. 2003) (treatment of stateless vessels under international law)
  • United States v. Caicedo, 47 F.3d 370 (9th Cir. 1995) (stateless-vessel jurisdiction discussion)
  • United States v. Arra, 630 F.2d 836 (1st Cir. 1980) (vessels have the nationality of the flag they are entitled to fly)
  • United States v. González, 311 F.3d 440 (1st Cir. 2002) (context on "go-fast" boats and drug smuggling)
Read the full case