[DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 1 of 42 Dorian Gosden Walton and several others were on board 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 mas ter 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 Mariti me 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. , a rt. 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 jurisdictio n 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).

Case: 15-12253 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 2 of 43 Nations.” U.S. Const. , a rt. 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 feloni es 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 Feloni es 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 proble m and is universally condemned, and (2) presents a specific threat to the security and societal w ell

- 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, t he MDLEA broadly prohibit s 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 nationalit y .” 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, 8 10 (11th Cir. ), cert. denied 135 S. Ct. 704 (2014); E stupinan , 453 Case: 15-12253 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 3 of 44 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 Campbel l , 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 t o 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 recogni zed 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 e ffect inside the United States. Congress also may assert extraterritorial jurisdiction beca use 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 unconstit utional 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. Case: 15-12253 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 4 of 4