United States v. Dorian Benito Gosden Walton

Case: 15-12253 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-12253
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-20023-FAM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DORIAN BENITO GOSDEN WALTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(December 22, 2015)
Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-12253 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 2 of 4
Dorian Gosden Walton and several others were onboard a vessel in
international waters 75 nautical miles southwest of Jamaica when they were
stopped by the United States Coast Guard. The Coast Guard boarding team found
around 1,800 kilograms of marijuana on board. Gosden Walton identified himself
as the master of the ship, which bore no indicia of nationality. Subsequently,
Gosden Walton pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
marijuana while onboard a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in
violation of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (“MDLEA”), 46 U.S.C. §§
70503(a)(1) and 70506(a)–(b). He was sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Gosden Walton argues that the MDLEA is unconstitutional
because the Felonies Clause of the Constitution, see U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 10,
does not give Congress the authority to proscribe drug trafficking in international
waters without a showing of some nexus to the United States. 1 He asserts that drug
trafficking is not a crime subject to universal jurisdiction under customary
international law. But, as he acknowledges, his challenge to the MDLEA is
foreclosed by prior precedent.
The Constitution grants Congress the power to “[t]o define and punish
Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of
1
The parties dispute what standard of review applies to Gosden Walton’s challenge—
whether de novo or plain error. We need not and do not decide what standard of review applies
because, regardless, Gosden Walton’s challenge fails under the more exacting standard of de
novo review. United States v. Estupinan, 453 F.3d 1336, 1338 (11th Cir. 2006).
2
Case: 15-12253 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 3 of 4
Nations.” U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 10. As interpreted by the United States
Supreme Court, this Clause contains “three distinct grants of power: the power to
define and punish piracies, the power to define and punish felonies committed on
the high seas, and the power to define and punish offenses against the law of
nations.” United States v. Bellaizac-Hurtado, 700 F.3d 1245, 1248 (11th Cir.
2012). This case concerns the second grant of power, also referred to as the
Felonies Clause.
By enacting the MDLEA, Congress specifically sought “to punish drug
trafficking on the high seas, because drug trafficking aboard vessels (1) is a serious
international problem and is universally condemned, and (2) presents a specific
threat to the security and societal well-being of the United States.” United States v.
Estupinan, 453 F.3d 1336, 1338 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). To that end, the MDLEA broadly prohibits drug trafficking on
any vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, even if “the act is
committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” 46 U.S.C.
§ 70503(a) & (b). Vessels “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” include
vessels “without nationality.” 46 U.S.C. § 70501(c)(1)(A).
We have twice rejected the argument that Congress exceeded its authority
under the Felonies Clause in enacting the MDLEA. United States v. Campbell,
743 F.3d 802, 810 (11th Cir.), cert. denied 135 S. Ct. 704 (2014); Estupinan, 453
3
Case: 15-12253 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 4 of 4
F.3d at 1338-39. Moreover, “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. As we explained in Campbell,
The Felonies Clause empowers Congress to punish
crimes committed on the high seas. And inasmuch as the
trafficking of narcotics is condemned universally by law-
abiding nations, we see no reason to conclude that it is
fundamentally unfair for Congress to provide for the
punishment of persons apprehended with narcotics on the
high seas. Congress may assert extraterritorial
jurisdiction over vessels in the high seas that are engaged
in conduct that has a potentially adverse effect and is
generally recognized as a crime by nations that have
reasonably developed legal systems. And the protective
principle does not require that there be proof of an actual
or intended effect inside the United States. Congress also
may assert extraterritorial jurisdiction because the law
places no restrictions upon a nation’s right to subject
stateless vessels to its jurisdiction.
Id. (citations, brackets, and internal quotation marks omitted). Stateless vessels,
such as the one Gosden Walton mastered, are “international pariahs that have no
internationally recognized right to navigate freely on the high seas.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted).
In short, our binding precedent in Campbell and Estupinan forecloses
Gosden Walton’s argument that the MDLEA is unconstitutional as applied to drug
trafficking on the high seas that bears no nexus to the United States. Id.;
Estupinan, 453 F.3d at 1338-39. We therefore affirm his conviction.
AFFIRMED.
4