[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 17

- 15237 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:17

- cr - 60127

- BB

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus ANTHONY GARFIELD COX, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ ( August 9, 2018 )

Before WILSON, JORDAN and BLACK , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case: 17-15237 Date Filed: 08/09/2018 Page: 1 of 52 Anthony Garf ield Cox appeals his conviction, entered after a guilty plea , for conspiracy to possess, with intent to distribute, a controlled substance while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of the Maritime Drug Law Enfor ce ment Act (MDLEA ) 46 U.S.C. §§ 705 03(a)(1), 70506(b). Cox brings two issues on appeal, which we address in turn. After review, 1 we affirm the district court.
I. DISCUSSION A. Constitutionality of the MDLEA Cox first a sserts the MDLEA is unconstitutional because his prosecution for drug trafficking on the high seas without any connection to the United States exceeds Congress’s enumerated powers under the Felonies Clause and violates his due process rights. Cox also contends the MDLEA is unconstitutional because it prevents the jury from considering the court’s jurisdiction and is therefore a violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to a jury trial. However, Cox concedes his arguments are foreclosed by binding preced ent. See United States v. Vega

– Castillo , 540 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir. 2008) (stating u nder the prior precedent rule, we are bound by our prior decisions unless and until they are overruled by the Supreme Court or this Court en banc )

.

1 We review de novo whether a statute is constitutional. United States v. Campbell , 743 F.3d 802, 805 (11th Cir. 2014). We also review de novo a district court’s interpretation and application of statutory provisions with respect to whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. United States v. Tinoco , 304 F.3d 1088, 1114 (11th Cir. 2002).

Case: 17-15237 Date Filed: 08/09/2018 Page: 2 of 53 The district cou rt did not err in denying Cox’s motion to dismiss the indictment because the MDLEA is facially constitutional, see, e.g. , United States v. Campbell , 743 F.3d 802, 809

– 1 2 (11th Cir. 2014) (upholding the MDLEA as a valid exercise of Congress’s authority ) , and it is constitutional as applied to Cox because prosecution under the MDLEA without a jurisdictional nexus does not violate due process, see, e.g. , United States v. Wilchcombe , 838 F.3d 1179, 1186 (11th Cir. 2016) ( explaining t he MDLEA does not have a nexus requirement and this does not violate due process )

. T he district court also did not err by making a pretrial jurisdictional determination under the MDLEA because Congress specifically removed it as an element to be proven to a jury and jurisdiction al issues under the MDLEA may be resolved by the district court without violating the defendant’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to due process and a jury trial.
See United States v. Tinoco , 304 F.3d 1088, 111 1

- 12 (11th Cir. 2002) (holding Congress was entitled to remove the particular jurisdictional question from the jury and t herefore, neither the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, nor the Sixth Amendment right to a jury require the MDLEA’s jurisdictional requirement be an element of the offense ). B. Vessel without Nationality
Cox contends the Government failed to conclusively prove an element of his conviction

— that the vessel qualifies as a “vessel without nationality” to make it

Case: 17-15237 Date Filed: 08/09/2018 Page: 3 of 54 subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the MDLEA. He asserts the certificate of the Secretary of State’s designee for registry of the vessel was only conclusive proof of Jamaica’s response, not of the statelessness of the vessel, and
was t herefore insufficient to establish the vessel was without nationality and to establish jurisdiction. However, Cox concedes once again this argument is precluded under binding precedent.
A vessel without nationality is subject to the United States’ juris diction under the MDL EA. 46 U.S.C. § 70502(c)(1)(A). A vessel is without nationality when “the master or individual in charge makes a claim of registry and for which the claimed nation of registry” either denies the claim or “does not affirmatively and u nequivocally assert that the vessel is of its nationality.” Id. § 70502(d)(1). The response of the claimed nation of registration “is prove[n] conclusively by certification of the Secretary of State or the Secretary’s designee.” Id. § 70502(d)(2). The district court did not err in finding that the vessel was within the jurisdiction of the United States and denying Cox’s motion to dismiss the indictment. Cox and his codefendants claimed that the ve ssel was of Jamaican registry. T he United States submi tted a certificate of Commander DelRosso of the Coast Guard certifying that the Government of Jamaica responded it did not have record s of the vessel in its registry. Commander DelRosso was a designee of the

Case: 17-15237 Date Filed: 08/09/2018 Page: 4 of 55 Secretary of State, and his certification was c onclusive proof of jurisdiction and sufficient to stand alone. 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(2); see also Campbell , 743 F.3d at 809 (holding the certification

— there, a statement b y a United States Coast Guard Commander explaining his exchange with the country of a lleged registration

— was sufficient and conclusive proof that the vessel was within the jurisdiction of the United States, under the MDLEA )

. II. CONCLUSION Accordingly, we affirm Cox’s conviction. AFFIRMED. Case: 17-15237 Date Filed: 08/09/2018 Page: 5 of 5