[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 17

- 10603 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:16

- cr - 20381

- KMW

- 2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus WALKIN DE LEON PERALTA, Defendant

- Appellant.

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

________________________ (October 30, 2017) Before MARTIN , ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Case: 17-10603 Date Filed: 10/30/2017 Page: 1 of 42 Walkin De Leon Peralta appeals his convictions for possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States , in violation of 46 U.S.C. § 70506(a)(1) and (b). On appeal, De Leon contends that the Maritime Dru g Law Enforcement Act (“MDLEA” ), the statute under which he

was charged and convicted , is unconstitutional as applied to him. We affirm. The Constitution permits Congress to “define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas.” U.S. const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 10. Congress enacted the MDLEA to “punish drug trafficking on the high seas.” United States v. Estupinan , 453 F. 3d 1336, 1338 (11th Cir. 2006). The MDLEA prohibits individuals from “knowingly or intentionally

. . . manufactur[ing] or distribut[ing], or possess[ing] with intent to manufacture or distribute, a contro lled substance” on board “a vessel of the United States or a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” 46 U.S.C. § 70503(a), (e); see also United States v. Campbell , 743 F.3d 802, 805 (11th Cir. 2014). Under the MDLEA, a vessel “subject t o the jurisdiction of the United States” includes “a vessel without nationality , ” a term which includes “a vessel aboard which the master or individual in charge makes a claim of registry that is denied by the nation whose registry is claimed.” 46 U.S.C. § 70502(c)(1)(A), (d)(1)(A).

Case: 17-10603 Date Filed: 10/30/2017 Page: 2 of 43 In 1996, Congress amended the MDLEA to provide that “[j]urisdiction of the United States with respect to a vessel subject to this chapter is not an element of an offense.” 46 U.S.C. § 70504(a) ; see Campbell , 743 F.3d at 805. Instead, jurisdictional issues under the MDLEA “ are preliminary questions of law to be determined solely by the trial judge.” 46 U.S.C. § 70504(a).
De Leon argues that Congress ’s power to punish felonies on the hi gh seas does not extend to drug

- trafficking offenses with no nexus to the United States. Relying on principles of personal jurisdiction, h e further asserts that it violates due
process for courts to exercise jurisdiction over conduct with out such a nexus

. He also maintains that the MDL EA violates his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments bec au se it removes the factual basis of the jurisdictional requirement from the jury’s consideration. As De Leon concedes, however, we have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of the MDLEA in the face of these arguments. See,
e.g. , United States v. Cruickshank , 837 F.3d 1182, 1187

– 88 (11th Cir . 2016), Campbell , 743 F.3d at 809

– 12; United States v. Rendon , 354 F.3d 1320 , 1324

– 28 (11th Cir. 2003) ; United States v. Tinoco , 304 F.3d 1088, 1108

– 12 (11th Cir. 2002)

. In Campbell , for example, we rejected each of the arguments De Leon raises on appeal. See 743 F.3d at 809

– 12. We held that (1) the MDLEA is a valid exercise of Congress’ s power under the Felonies Clause as applied to offenses

Case: 17-10603 Date Filed: 10/30/2017 Page: 3 of 44 without a nexus to the United States , id. at 810 ; (2) a conviction under the MDLEA does not violate a defendant’ s right to due p rocess under the Fifth Amendment

even when the offense lacks such a nexu s , id. at 812 ; and (3) the Fifth and Sixth Amendment do not require a jury to determine whether extraterritorial jurisdiction exists under the MDLEA, id. at 809. See also Cruickshank , 837 F.3d at 1188 (“ In Campbell , we reaffirmed that Congress did not exceed its authority by enacti ng the MDLEA; we determined that no jurisdictional nexus was required under the MDLEA; and we concluded that convictions under the MDLEA do not violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. ”).

“ U nder the prior precedent rule, we are bound to follow a prior binding precedent unless and until it is overruled by this court en banc or by the Supreme
Court.” United States v. Vega

- Castillo , 540 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir. 2008) ( internal quotation marks omitted). Because De Leon’s ar guments are foreclosed by binding precedent, we affirm his conviction s . His arguments are preserved for purposes of further review. AFFIRMED. Case: 17-10603 Date Filed: 10/30/2017 Page: 4 of 4