United States v. Ercirilo Murillo Ruiz

Case: 19-12561 Date Filed: 04/24/2020 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-12561
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cr-00017-WS-MU-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ERCIRILO MURILLO RUIZ,
a.k.a. Ericirilo Murillo Ruiz,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
________________________
(April 24, 2020)
Before JILL PRYOR, LAGOA and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 19-12561 Date Filed: 04/24/2020 Page: 2 of 8
Ercirilo Murillo Ruiz appeals his conviction for one count of conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute one kilogram or more of cocaine on
board 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) and
70506(b). Without holding an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Ruiz’s
motions to dismiss the indictment and to suppress, and Ruiz challenges both
rulings. After careful review, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
We assume the parties are familiar with the facts and do not recount them
here. We note, however, that we recently decided identical claims brought by
Ruiz’s codefendant, Teofilo Ruiz-Murillo, and in that opinion we explained the
facts related to the codefendants’ offense. See United States v. Ruiz-Murillo, 736
F. App’x 812, 814-15 (11th Cir. 2018) (unpublished). As we recounted in detail
there, Ruiz and Ruiz-Murillo moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that:
(1) the United States lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the vessel upon
which they were apprehended was not stateless and was not in international waters
when the Coast Guard stopped them; (2) the MDLEA was unconstitutional because
it lacked a requirement that the government prove a nexus between the United
States and the defendants; and (3) the Southern District of Alabama was not the
appropriate venue. Ruiz and Ruiz-Murillo also moved to suppress evidence seized
2
Case: 19-12561 Date Filed: 04/24/2020 Page: 3 of 8
from a warrantless search of the vessel, reiterating the argument that the
government failed to prove the vessel’s presence in international waters as the
MDLEA requires and arguing that the government failed to show reasonable
suspicion for the search. Without holding a hearing, the district court denied the
motions. See Ruiz-Murillo, 736 F. App’x at 815 (explaining the government’s
response to the motion to dismiss and the district court’s order).
Ruiz and Ruiz-Murillo then pled guilty, Ruiz-Murillo with a conditional
plea, see id., and Ruiz without the benefit of a plea agreement. At his change of
plea hearing, Ruiz admitted to the facts as proffered by the government, including
that his vessel was in international waters and was stateless because Colombia
could not confirm or deny its nationality. In pleading guilty without a plea
agreement, unlike his codefendant Ruiz-Murillo, Ruiz did not expressly reserve the
right to appeal issues raised in his pretrial motions. See id. The district court
sentenced Ruiz to 60 months’ imprisonment followed by 5 years’ supervised
release. This is Ruiz’s appeal.
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
We review de novo questions of constitutional law, statutory subject matter
jurisdiction, and a district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment for
improper venue. United States v. Whatley, 719 F.3d 1206, 1213 (11th Cir. 2013)
(constitutional questions); United States v. McPhee, 336 F.3d 1269, 1271 (11th
3
Case: 19-12561 Date Filed: 04/24/2020 Page: 4 of 8
Cir. 2003) (subject matter jurisdiction); United States v. Muench, 153 F.3d 1298,
1300 (11th Cir. 1998) (venue). We also review de novo whether a defendant has
waived his right to appeal an issue by entering an unconditional guilty plea.
United States v. Patti, 337 F.3d 1317, 1320 & n.4 (11th Cir. 2003). We review a
district court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing for an abuse of discretion. United
States v. Barsoum, 763 F.3d 1321, 1328 (11th Cir. 2014).
III. DISCUSSION
On appeal Ruiz argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to
suppress. He also argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to
dismiss the indictment. Specifically, he argues: (1) due process required that he
have an evidentiary hearing; (2) the government failed to prove that his vessel was
stateless and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; (3) the
district court improperly relied on certain evidence to conclude that the vessel was
subject to the United States’ jurisdiction, including testimony admitted at a
preliminary hearing before a magistrate judge; (4) the district court wrongly
concluded that venue was proper in the Southern District of Alabama; and (5) the
MDLEA is unconstitutional because it lacks a requirement that the government
prove a nexus between the defendant and the United States.
4
Case: 19-12561 Date Filed: 04/24/2020 Page: 5 of 8
By pleading guilty unconditionally, Ruiz has waived all but the last of these
arguments.1 United States v. Smith, 532 F.3d 1125, 1127 (11th Cir. 2008) (“The
general rule is that a guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional challenges to a
conviction.”). The waived arguments include his challenges to the district court’s
denials of his motion suppress evidence and his motion to dismiss the indictment
for lack of venue. See Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 308 U.S. 165,
167-68 (1939) (holding that venue is non-jurisdictional and can be waived); United
States v. Charles, 757 F.3d 1222, 1227 n.4 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that an
unconditional guilty plea results in waiver of a challenge to the district court’s
denial of a motion to suppress evidence). Further, Ruiz’s guilty plea waived his
challenge to the district court’s denial of these motions without an evidentiary
hearing. See Smith, 532 F.3d at 1127.
Ruiz’s guilty plea also means he has waived his arguments that the
government proffered insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that the
district court relied on improper evidence to show that the vessel was stateless and
therefore subject to the United States’ jurisdiction under the MDLEA. Ruiz’s
argument that his vessel was not stateless is a challenge to the district court’s
finding that the Coast Guard complied with the MDLEA, not to the subject matter
1
It is undisputed that Ruiz’s plea was unconditional. A conditional guilty plea must be in
writing and consented to by the government and the district court. United States v. Betancourth,
554 F.3d 1329, 1332 (11th Cir. 2009).
5
Case: 19-12561 Date Filed: 04/24/2020 Page: 6 of 8
jurisdiction of the district court. See United States v. McCoy, 266 F.3d 1245, 1252
(11th Cir. 2001) (“[A]n indictment charging that a defendant violated a law of the
United States gives the district court jurisdiction over the case and empowers it to
rule on the sufficiency of the indictment.”). By pleading guilty, Ruiz admitted that
the vessel was in international waters and was without a nationality. Because a
defendant who pleads guilty unconditionally “relinquishes any claim that would
contradict the admissions necessarily made upon entry of a voluntary plea of
guilty,” Class v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 798, 805 (2018) (internal quotation
marks omitted), Ruiz has relinquished his challenges to the evidence showing that
the vessel was stateless.
Even if Ruiz’s guilty plea did not bar our consideration of these arguments,
we would reject them for the same reasons we rejected his codefendant’s identical
arguments. See Ruiz-Murillo, 736 F. App’x at 816-19 & n.3 (concluding that the
proof the government supplied to show that the vessel was stateless was sufficient;
the district court was entitled to rely on the evidence challenged, including
testimony before the magistrate judge; the district court was not required to hold an
evidentiary hearing because the motion to dismiss failed to allege facts that, if
proven, would require the grant of relief; venue was proper in the Southern District
of Alabama; and the motion to suppress was properly denied). Ruiz requests
6
Case: 19-12561 Date Filed: 04/24/2020 Page: 7 of 8
generally that “this court [] revisit and reconsider that opinion,” Appellant’s Br. at
2 n.1, but he fails to specify any error in it. We adopt its reasoning here.
The only argument Ruiz has not waived by pleading guilty is that his
conviction should be vacated because the MDLEA is unconstitutional insofar as it
does not require the government to prove a nexus between a defendant and the
United States. See United States v. Saac, 632 F.3d 1203, 1208 (11th Cir. 2011)
(holding that an unconditional guilty plea does not bar a defendant from
challenging the constitutionality of the statute of conviction). As Ruiz
acknowledges, however, his argument is foreclosed by precedent. We previously
have held 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.” United States v. Campbell, 743 F.3d 802, 810 (11th Cir.
2014); see also United States v. Wilchcombe, 838 F.3d 1179, 1186 (11th Cir. 2016)
(same). We are bound to follow these decisions unless or until they are overruled
by this Court sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court. United States v. Vega-
Castillo, 540 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir. 2008).2
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Ruiz’s conviction.
2
We reject Ruiz’s contention that our decision in United States v. Bellaizac-Hurtado, 700
F.3d 1245, 1249-58 (11th Cir. 2012), supports a different result. See Ruiz-Murillo, 736 F. App’x
at 818.
7
Case: 19-12561 Date Filed: 04/24/2020 Page: 8 of 8
AFFIRMED.
8