United States v. Wilson Alfredo Solis Cortes , 698 F. App'x 966 ( 2017 )

Case: 16-17150 Date Filed: 06/20/2017 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-17150
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-20501-DMM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILSON ALFREDO SOLIS CORTES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 20, 2017)
Before MARCUS, MARTIN, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-17150 Date Filed: 06/20/2017 Page: 2 of 5
Defendant Wilson Solis Cortes appeals his conviction and 120-month
sentence, imposed after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States, in violation of 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a), 70506(b). On appeal,
Defendant argues that the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (“MDLEA”)—the
statute under which he was charged and convicted—is unconstitutional. After
careful review, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
According to the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”), in May 2016, a
Marine Patrol Aircraft spotted a low-profile vessel in international waters near
Costa Rica. Sent to investigate, the United States Coast Guard discovered three
people on board the vessel, as well as 43 bales of cocaine floating several nautical
miles away from the vessel. Along with the two others on board the vessel,
Defendant claimed Colombian nationality and stated that the vessel was also
Colombian. The Coast Guard contacted the Colombian government, which neither
confirmed nor denied the vessel’s nationality. As a result, the vessel was treated as
a vessel without nationality. 1 Following Defendant’s arrest, he admitted that he
was paid to throw the bales of cocaine into the water at specific GPS coordinates.
1
The MDLEA provides that a “vessel without nationality” is subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States and includes “a vessel aboard which the master or individual in charge makes a
2
Case: 16-17150 Date Filed: 06/20/2017 Page: 3 of 5
A federal grand jury subsequently indicted Defendant on one count of
conspiring to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of
46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a), 70506(b) (Count 1), and one count of possession with
intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a)(1),
70506(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count 2). The indictment stated that both offenses
occurred while Defendant was “on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States.”
Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the MDLEA
was unconstitutional. He recognized that this argument was foreclosed by binding
precedent, but nevertheless presented the issue for further review. He further
argued that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him because Congress did
not have authority to punish a crime that occurs on the high seas unless the crime
has a nexus to the United States. Defendant acknowledged that this argument was
likewise foreclosed by binding precedent. The district court denied Defendant’s
motion.
Defendant later pled guilty to Count 1: conspiring to possess with intent to
distribute cocaine on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,
claim of registry that is denied by the nation whose registry is claimed.” 46 U.S.C.
§ 70502(c)(1)(A), (d)(1)(A).
3
Case: 16-17150 Date Filed: 06/20/2017 Page: 4 of 5
46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a), 70506(b). The district court sentenced Defendant to 120
months’ imprisonment.
II. DISCUSSION
We review de novo whether a statute is constitutional. United States v.
Spoerke, 568 F.3d 1236, 1244 (11th Cir. 2009) (“When a motion to dismiss
challenges the constitutionality of a statute, we review de novo the interpretation of
the statute by the district court.”).
The Constitution permits Congress to “define and punish Piracies and
Felonies committed on the high Seas.” U.S. const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 10. The MDLEA
prohibits individuals from “knowingly or intentionally . . . . manufactur[ing] or
distribut[ing], or possess[ing] with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled
substance” on board “a vessel of the United States or a vessel subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States.” 46 U.S.C. § 70503(a), (e); see also United States
v. Campbell, 743 F.3d 802, 805 (11th Cir. 2014). Congress specifically enacted
the MDLEA to “punish drug trafficking on the high seas.” United States v.
Estupinan, 453 F.3d 1336, 1338 (11th Cir. 2006).
Defendant argues that the MDLEA is unconstitutional as applied to drug
trafficking offenses where there is no nexus to the United States. He further asserts
that Congress exceeded its authority under the Piracies and Felonies Clause by
4
Case: 16-17150 Date Filed: 06/20/2017 Page: 5 of 5
enacting the MDLEA. As Defendant concedes, he cannot prevail on his arguments
because they are foreclosed by binding precedent.
This Court has repeatedly concluded that the MDLEA is a valid exercise of
Congress’s power under the Piracies and Felonies Clause of the Constitution.
Campbell, 743 F.3d at 810; see also United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182,
1188 (11th Cir. 2016) (reaffirming this Court’s decision in Campbell by rejecting
defendant’s argument that Congress exceeded its authority by enacting the
MDLEA), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1325 (U.S. Apr. 3, 2017). Moreover, this Court
has “recognized that the conduct proscribed by the [MDLEA] need not have a
nexus to the United States because universal and protective principles support its
extraterritorial reach.” Campbell, 743 F.3d at 810; United States v. Wilchcombe,
838 F.3d 1179, 1186 (11th Cir. 2016) (“The text of the MDLEA does not require a
nexus between the defendants and the United States; it specifically provides that its
prohibitions on drug trafficking are applicable ‘even though the act is committed
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.’” (quoting 46 U.S.C.
§ 70503(b))), petition for cert. filed, (16-1063) (U.S. Mar. 6, 2017). Under the
prior precedent rule, “we are bound to follow a prior binding precedent unless and
until it is overruled by this court en banc or by the Supreme Court.” United States
v. Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted).
Accordingly, Defendant’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
5