FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E ALS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JULY 27, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 13839 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 0 3 5 - C R - T - 2 6 - T GW U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s L I B A R D O E S T U P I N A N - E S T U P I N A N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 27, 2007) B efo re D U B IN A , B L A C K an d C A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: L ib a r d o E s tu p in a n - E s tu p in a n ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n f o rc o n s p ir a c y to2

pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e c oc a i ne w hi l e on boa r d a ve s s e l s ubj e c tt o the j uri sdi ct i on of the U ni t ed S t at es , i n v i ol at i on of T he M ar i t i m e D rug L aw En f o r c e me n tA c t( M D LEA ) , 4 6 A p p . U . S. C. § 1 9 0 3 ( a ) , ( g ) , ( j ) , a n d 2 1 U . S. C. § 960( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i ) . H e a s s e r t s tw o a r gum e nt s on appe a l , w hi c h w e a ddr e s s i n turn. I. E stup i nan-E stup i nan fi rs tcont ends the di stri ctcourtl ac ked subj ec t -m att er ju r is d ic tio n o v e rh im b e c a u s e n e ith e rh e n o rh is c r im e h a d a p r o v e n c o n n e c tio n to the U ni t ed S t at es , and i toffe nd s “ tra di t i on al no t i on s of f ai r pl ayand sub st ant i al j u st i ce” t o al l o w an ex erci se o f j u ri sd i ct i o n o v er h i m u n d er th ese ci rcu m st an ces.

“ A defe nd antw ho ent er s apl eaof gu i l ty w ai ves a l l no nj uri sdi ct i on al c ha l l e nge s t o the c ons t i tut i ona l i ty of the c onvi c t i on, a nd onl y a n a tt a c k on the vo l un t ary a nd kn ow i ng nature of the pl eaca n b e s ust ai ned. ” W i l son v. U ni ted Stat es , 962 F . 2d 996, 997 ( 11th C i r . 1992) . H ow e ve r , t o the e xt e nttha tE s tupi na nE s tu p in a n ’s c h a lle n g e is to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s ju r is d ic tio n o v e rh im , w e r e v ie w h is a r g u m e n t de no vo . See U ni ted Stat es v. P er ez , 95 6 F . 2d 10 98 , 11 01 (11th C i r. 19 92 ). W e have consi dere d and re j ec t ed the ar gu m entthat , because no “ nexu s” w as pr ove n be tw e e n a de f

e nda nt–a C ol om bi a n na t i ona l w ho w a s appr e he nde d on a “ go fa st ” boati n the P ac i fi c O ce an and i nd i ct ed un der the M D L E A –and the U ni t ed3

S ta te s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t la c k e d ju r is d ic tio n o v e rth e d e f e n d a n t. See U

ni ted Stat es v . R e ndon , 3 5 4 F .3 d 1 3 2 0 , 1 3 2 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . “[ U ]n d e rth e p r o te c tiv e p r in c ip le o f in te rn a tio n a l la w , [ C o n g r e s s ] m a y a s s e r t e x tr a te rr ito r ia l ju r is d ic tio n o v e rv e s s e ls i n the hi gh se as thatar e e ng aged i n con du ctthathas apo t ent i al l y a dv er se ef fe ct and i s gener al l y r ec og ni ze d as acr i m e by nat i on s thathave rea sonabl y devel op ed l egal sy st em s. ” I

d . (quo t at i on s om i tt ed). F urtherm ore, w e e m ph as i ze d thatw e, al on g w i th o ther C i rc ui t s, have rej ec t ed the ar gu m entthata “ nexu s” t o the U ni t ed S ta te s is a p r e r e q u is ite to th e e x e r c is e o f ju r is d ic tio n u n d e rth e M D L E A . I d . B ec ause w e have re

j ec t ed the ar gu m entthata di stri ctcourtl ac ks j uri sdi ct i on ov era f o r e ig n n a tio n a l in d ic te d u n d e rth e M D L E A f o rtr a n s p o r ta tio n o f

d ru g s in i n t ern at i o n al w at ers, E stu p i n an -E stu p i n an ’ s arg u m en tfai l s. II . N ext , E stup i nan-E stup i nan con t ends the M D L E A i s uncon st i tut i on al be c a us e i ti s a n ul tra vi res e xe r c i s e of C ongr e s s ’ pow e runde rA r t i c l e I , § 8, c l . 10 of the C on st i tut i on , w hi ch gi ves C on gres s the po w ert o “ defi ne and p un i sh P i ra ci es and F el on i es on the hi gh se as . ” W e have hel d the M D L E A do es no texce ed C ongr e s s ’ l a w - m a ki ng a uthor i ty , not i ng tha tthe “ P i r a c i e s a nd F e l oni e s ” C l a us e of the C on st i tut i on em po w er s C on gres s t o “ defi ne and p un i sh P i ra ci es and F el on i es on the hi gh S ea s, and O ff ence s a gai nstthe L aw of N at i on s, ” a nd the M D L E A w as4

de s i gne d t o “ puni s h drug tr a f f i c ki ng on the hi gh s e a s , be c a us e drug tr a f f i c ki ng aboa r d ve s s e l s ( 1) i s a s e r i ous i nt e rna t i ona l pr obl e m a nd i s uni ve r s a l l y c onde m ne d, a nd ( 2) pr e s e nt s a s pe c i f i c thr e a tt o the s e c ur i ty a nd s oc i e t a l w e l l - be i ng of the U ni t ed S t at es . ” U

ni te d State s v . Es tupi nan , 45 3 F . 3d 13 36 , 13 38 (11th C i r. 20 06 ), ce rt. deni ed , 127 S . C t . 1486 ( 2007) ( quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . B e c a us e w e ha ve p r e v io u s ly h e ld th e M D L E A d o e s n o t e x c e e d C o n g r e s s ’ la w - m a k in g a u th o r ity , th is a r gum e nta l s o f

a i l s . T hus , w e a f

f i r m E s t i pi na n- E s tupi na n’ s c onvi c t i on. AF F I RME D.