[DO NOT PUBLISH]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 4 
2

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 Drug 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 controlled 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 to 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 4 
3

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 high seas 

does not extend to drug-trafficking offenses with no nexus to the United States. 

Relying on principles of personal jurisdiction, he further asserts that it violates due 

process for courts to exercise jurisdiction over conduct without such a nexus. He 

also maintains that the MDLEA violates his rights under the Fifth and Sixth 

Amendments because 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 4 
4

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 process under the Fifth Amendment 

even when the offense lacks such a nexus, 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 enacting 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.”).

“Under 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 arguments are foreclosed 

by binding precedent, we affirm his convictions. His arguments are preserved for 

purposes of further review. 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 17-10603 Date Filed: 10/30/2017 Page: 4 of 4