[DO NOT PUBLISH]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 4 
2

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). 

Case: 15-12253 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 2 of 4 
3

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 

Case: 15-12253 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 3 of 4 
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 lawabiding 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.

Case: 15-12253 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 4 of 4