[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-12564

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cr-00017-WS-MU-3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

JHONATAN GRANJA ANGULO, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

________________________

(November 16, 2020)

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 19-12564 Date Filed: 11/16/2020 Page: 1 of 6
2

Jhonatan Granja Angulo 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). A magistrate judge found subject matter jurisdiction in the case. Then, 

without holding an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Angulo’s motions 

to dismiss the indictment and to suppress. Angulo challenges these three rulings. 

After careful review, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

We assume the parties are familiar with the facts and do not recount them in 

any detail here. We note, however, that we recently have addressed identical 

claims brought by two of Angulo’s codefendants, Teofilo Ruiz-Murillo and 

Ercirilo Murillo Ruiz. United States v. Ruiz, 811 F. App’x 540 (11th Cir. 2020) 

(unpublished); United States v. Ruiz-Murillo, 736 F. App’x 812 (11th Cir. 2018) 

(unpublished). In Ruiz-Murillo’s case, we detailed the facts related to the 

codefendants’ offense. See Ruiz-Murillo, 736 F. App’x at 814–15. 

As we recounted there, a magistrate judge conducted a preliminary hearing 

at which it determined that the court had subject matter jurisdiction over the case. 

A grand jury then indicted Angulo, Ruiz, and Ruiz-Murillo. The three moved to 

dismiss the indictment, arguing that: (1) the United States lacked subject matter 

USCA11 Case: 19-12564 Date Filed: 11/16/2020 Page: 2 of 6
3

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. Angulo, Ruiz,

and Ruiz-Murillo also moved to suppress evidence seized 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).

Each codefendant then pled guilty. Angulo pled guilty pursuant to a written 

plea agreement in which he did not reserve his right to appeal issues raised in any 

pretrial motions.

1

 The district court sentenced Angulo to 60 months’ imprisonment 

followed by 5 years’ supervised release. This is Angulo’s appeal.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

1 Ruiz-Murillo pled guilty pursuant to a conditional plea, expressly reserving his right to 

appeal issues raised in the pretrial motions. See Ruiz-Murillo, 736 F. App’x at 815. Ruiz pled 

guilty without a plea agreement. See Ruiz, 811 F. App’x at 542.

USCA11 Case: 19-12564 Date Filed: 11/16/2020 Page: 3 of 6
4

We review de novo questions of statutory subject matter jurisdiction. United 

States v. McPhee, 336 F.3d 1269, 1271 (11th Cir. 2003). 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 Angulo argues that: (1) the magistrate judge erred in determining 

subject matter jurisdiction without referring the matter to the district court; (2) the 

district court erred in deciding the motions to dismiss the indictment and to 

suppress without holding a hearing; and (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 the magistrate judge’s preliminary 

hearing. Angulo does not argue that the district court lacked subject matter 

jurisdiction; rather, he raises challenges to “the procedure that [was] due.” 

Appellant’s Br. at 1.

USCA11 Case: 19-12564 Date Filed: 11/16/2020 Page: 4 of 6
5

By pleading guilty unconditionally, Angulo has waived all of these 

arguments.2

 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.”); 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.”). Even if Angulo’s guilty plea did not bar our 

consideration of the arguments he makes on appeal, we would reject them for the

same reasons we rejected his codefendant Ruiz-Murillo’s identical arguments. See 

Ruiz-Murillo, 736 F. App’x at 816-19 & n.3 (concluding that any error in the 

magistrate judge’s pre-indictment jurisdictional determination was harmless; 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; and the motion to suppress was properly 

denied). Notably, Angulo does not argue that Ruiz-Murillo is inapplicable or 

2 It is undisputed that Angulo’s plea was unconditional. Conditions to a 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). Even though Angulo pled guilty pursuant to 

a plea agreement, his agreement (unlike his codefendant Ruiz-Murillo’s) contained no 

reservation of rights to appeal any issues in his pretrial motions. 

USCA11 Case: 19-12564 Date Filed: 11/16/2020 Page: 5 of 6
6

unpersuasive; he does not cite his codefendant’s case at all. Thus, waived or not, 

Angulo’s challenges lack merit. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Angulo’s conviction.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 19-12564 Date Filed: 11/16/2020 Page: 6 of 6