FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB RUARY 10, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 0 9- 14 47 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 9- 00 00 9- CR-T-2 6- MAP UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us EVER BALBINO IBARGUEN-MOSQUERA, EFRAIN CUERO PORTOCAR RERO, ISAIAS ESTUPINAN, Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Feb ru ary 10 , 20 11 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg e. *
Although United States District J udg e David H. Coar of the Norther n District of I llinois sat * by designation in this case , he retire d as an Article I I I J u d ge i n Dec ember 2010. Acc ording ly , we decide this case by

a quorum. See 11th Cir. R. 34-2.DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e:

App el la nt s Ev er Ba lb in o Ib arg üe n- Mo sque ra (“ Mo sque ra”) , Efrai n C ue ro Po rto carr ero (“ Po rto carr ero ”), an d Is ai as Estup in an(“ Estup in an ”) (c ol le ct iv el y ,

“ App el la nt s” ) ap pe al th ei r res pe ct iv e co nv ic ti on s fo r co ns pi rin g t o v io la te an d

1 vi ol at in g t he Drug Traffi ck in g Ves se l In te rd ic ti on Act, 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 85 (20 10 ) (th e “ DTVIA”). App el la nt s ch al le ng e th ei r co nv ic ti on s u nd er the DTVIA onfiv e gr ou nd s. Fi rs t, Ap pe ll an ts co nt en d t he DTVIA is u nc on st itut io na l o n v ari ou s gr ou nd s. Sec on d, Ap pe ll an ts arg ue th atco nv ic ti ng th em of b ot h c on sp ira cy

to vi ol at e an d asubs tant iv e v io la ti on of asi ng le st atut e ru ns afo ul of t he Co ns ti tu ti on ’s pro hi bi ti on ag ai ns t d oubl e jeop ardy . Thi rd , App el la nt s ar gu e th e 2 el em en ts of s ta te le ss ne ss an d n av ig at in g t hr ou gh in te rn at io na l wat ers , th atth e go ve rn m en t h adto pro ve , bear on cu lp ab il ity an d thu s ar e el em en ts of t he cri m e requi rin g p ro of

be y on d areas on ab le do ub t an d p ro of of men s r ea . Fourth , App el la nt s ar gu e ev enif thi s co urt fi nd s t ha t the di stric t co urt ap pl ie d t he ele m en ts of th e DTVIA correct ly, th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o fi ndth em gu il ty of

There was a fourth cre wmember -def endant named J ohny M o ri an o J iminez who did not 1 appea l his conviction. We use the term “De fenda nts” to ref

er to all of the cre wmemb er s in the orig inal case , including J iminez, while the term “Appe llants” ref ers to only

those Def

endants who join in thi s appea l. Portocarr ero doe s not join the other Appellants’ f

irst two challeng es. 2 2vi ol at in g t he st atut e. Fin al ly, Mo sque ra arg ue s the di st ric t co urt erredwhen it

ex cl ud edhi s ex pe rt wi tn es s’s t es ti m on y . Afte r th or ou ghrev ie w of t he cas e an d a fte r he ari ng ora l ar gu m en t, we affi rm th e App el lant s’ con vi ct io ns . I. Ba ck gr ou nd. A. Fact s On the m orni ng of J anua ry 8, 2 00 9, the Uni te d S ta te s C oa stGuar d S hi p ALERT (th e “ ALERT”) rece iv eda rep ort fr om a Mar it im e Pat ro l Ai rcra ft (“ MPA”) th atanun m ark edsemi-subm ers ib le ve ss el (th e “ Ves se l” ) was sp ot te d i n th e Eas te rnPaci fic Ocean , app ro xi m at el y 16 3 n au ti cal -m il es off

th e co as t o f Co lu m bi a. The Ves se l was oc ean -b lu e, 50 to 60 feetinlen gt h, an d s atve ry lo w in th e wat er. Se e App . A. T he ALERT im m ed ia te ly dis pa tc he d t o t he lo cat io n wh ere th e Ves se l was ori gi na ll y sp ot te d a ndarri ve d aro un d 1 2 h ou rs lat er. Befo re the ALERT arriv ed , th e MPA o bs erv edfou r m enex itth e cab in , do n li fe-v es ts , in fla te li fe-r aft s, an d ju m p i nt o t he wate r. The Def en da nt s t he n wai te d
ne ar the Vess el , whi chsatde adinth e wat er. Eve ntua ll y th ey de fla te d the raft s an d
res um edtra ve l. The ALERT dis pa tc he d ahe li co pt er t o o bt ai n i nf rare d i m ag ery of

th e Ves se l whe n i t n eare d t he Vess el ’s lo cat io n. Fo r anho urth e h el ic op te r co ve rtl y ob se rv ed
3th e Ves se l an d n ot edth at , ontwo oc cas io ns , th e Ves se l s to pp edan d aDefen da nt

ex it edth e fo rwardha tc h a ndscann edth e are a b efo re re tu rn in g b el ow d eck . After ob se rv at io n, the Heli co pt er i ll um in at edth e Ves se l an d a nn ou nc edit s p res en ce; at
aro un d t hi s t im e th e ALERT di sp at ch eda res cu e te am ona ri gi d- hu ll in fla tabl e bo at(th e “ Res cu e”) t o e xe cu te anin te rd ic ti on . Onc e th e h el ic op te r il lu min at edth e Ves se l, the Defen da nt s ca lm ly exi te d t he ha tc h, d on ne d l ife -jack et s, an d i nf la te d t he li fe-r aft s fo r a s eco ndti m e. One Defen da ntreturne d b el ow d eck , at wh ic h t im e h el ic op te r pe rs on ne l o bs erv eda

“ fla sh of l ig ht ” an d “ sm ok e o r st eam ” em itfro m th e Ves se l. Aft er the Defen da nt s jum pe d i nt o t he wate r, th e Ves se l s an k. The Res cu e arr iv edjus t as th e b oa t was co m pl et el y im m ers ed . The Re sc ue
crew es co rte d t he Defen da nt s b ackto th e ALERT, where th ey were tran sf

erre d t o
an ot he r U.S. Co as t Gu ardsh ip , andev en tu al ly flown to Tam pa , Flo rid a. They arri ve d i n Tam

paon Jan ua ry

14 , andwere p ro m

pt ly arres te d. Au th or it ie s in te rv ie wedeach Defen dantsep arat el y . B. Co ur se of P ro ceed in gs an d Di sp os it io n i n t he Dis tri ctCo urt. On J anua ry

13 , 20 09 , a fed eral grandjury returne d atwo -co un t i nd ic tm en t ch arg in g Def

en dant s wi th co ns pi rin g t o o pe rat e o r em ba rkina se m i-s ub m ers ib le
ve ss el inin te rn at io na l wat ers , witho utna ti on al it y an d wi thth e in te ntto ev ad e
4de te ct io n, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 85 , andop erat in g, wh il e ai di ng an d

ab et ti ng inth e o pe rat io n o f, a se m i-s ub m ers ib le ve ss el inin te rn at io na l wat ers , witho utna ti on al it y

an d wi th th e in te ntto ev ad e d et ect io n, i n v io la ti onof t he DTVIA, 18 U.S.C. § 2 28 5, an d 1 8 U.S.C. § 2. Sp eci fic al ly, th e DTVIA pro hi bi ts op erat [in g]
. . . or em

ba rk [in g] in an y subm ers ib le ve ss el or s e m isubm ers ib le ve ss el th at is witho ut n a t io na li ty an d th at is na vi ga ti ng or ha s na vi ga te d in to , th ro ug h, or fro m wate rs be y on d th e ou te r li m it of th e te rri to ria l se a of a s i n g le co un try or a la te ral li m it of th at co un try’ s te rri to ria l se a with a n a d ja cen t co un try, with th e in te nt to ev ad e de te ct io n. . . .
18 U.S.C. § 2 28 5( a). Sec ti on 2, o n t he ot he r ha nd , m erel y st an ds forth e g en eral pr in ci pl e th at“ [w]hoe ve r co m mit s an off

en se ag ai ns t the Uni te d S ta te s o r ai ds , ab et s, co un se ls , comm an ds , in du ces or p ro cu res it s co m m is si on , is pu ni sh ab le as a pr in ci pa l.” Def

en da nt s en te reda pl ea o f no t g ui lt y an d re qu es te d abe nc h t ria l. Dis tri ctJu dg e Lazza ra, s it ti ng as t he fact -fi nd er, fo un d Def en da nt s g ui lt y

of vi ol at in g t he DTVIA andsen te nc edeach to 10 8 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t an d 3 y ears
supe rv is edrel eas e fo r eac h c ou ntto runco nc urren tl y . App el la nt s t im el y ap pe al ed
. II . Disc us si on . A. App el la nt s C ha ll en ge s t o t he Co ns ti tu ti on al it y of t he DTVIA. Thi s ca se requi res us to ad dr es s de no vo fo urco ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng es to th e DTVIA inev al ua ti ng whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly den ie d Ap pe ll an ts ’
5m ot io ns to di sm is s t he ir i nd ic tm en ts . Spe ci fic al ly, App el lant s ar gu e th e DTVIA 3 is un co ns ti tu ti on al be cau se : (1 ) it s en act m en t ex ceed s C on gr es s’s p owe r un de r Arti cl e I; (2) th e p hr as es “ se m i-s ub m ers ib le ve ss el ” an d “ in te ntto ev ad e” ar e
un co ns ti tu ti on al ly vag ue ; (3 ) itsh ift s t he bu rd enon to de fen da nt s t o p ro ve th ey are
no t en ga gi ng indru g t raff ic ki ng an d t he refo re d en ie s t he m pro cedur al du e p ro ces s;
an d (4 ) itis no t ra ti on al ly relat edto a le gi ti m at e g ov ern m en t i nt eres t an d t he refo re vi ol at es subs ta nt iv e due pro ces s. Fo r th e rea so ns st at edbe lo w, we con cl ud e th at
no ne of Ap pe ll an ts ’ ch al le ng es ha ve m eri t an d t hu s af firm th e d is tri ctco urt’s de ni al of t he m ot io ns to di sm is s. 1. Ch al le ng e th at

th e DTVIA Excee ds Co ngress io na l Po wer . Arti cl e I, Sec ti on 8 o f th e Co ns ti tu ti on grant s C on gr es s t he po wer “ [t]o de fin e an d p un is h P ira ci es an d F el on ie s co m m it te d o n the hi gh Seas , andOffen se s ag ai ns t the Law of Nat io ns .” U.S. Con st . art . I, § 8 , cl. 1 0. Th is claus e is a br oa d gr an t o f po wer t o C on gr es s t o p un is h o ffen se s o ut si de of t he Uni te d S ta te s. Giv en th atleg is la tu res ha ve pl en ary po wer t o d efi ne th e te rm s o f cri m in al off en se s, Ch ic ag o, Bu rl in gt on , &Qui nc y Ry. Co . v. Uni te d Sta tes , 22 0 U.S. 5 59 , 57 8– 79 , 31

“Ge nera lly , we revie w a district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss the indictment for 3 abuse of discretion.” United States v. Di Pietro , 615 F.3d 1369, 1370 n.1 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Uni t ed St a t es v. Palomino Garcia , 606 F.3d 1317, 1322 (11th Cir. 2010)). When a defe ndant ch al l enges the constitutionality of a statute, howeve r, the revie w is de novo . United States v. Spoerke , 568 F.3d 1236, 1244 ( 11th Cir. 2009). 6S. Ct . 61 2, 6 17 (19 11 ), th e que st io n h ere i s wh ethe r an d i n wh atcir cu m st an ces

Co ng res s ca n g ran t ex tra te rri to ria l juris di ct io n o ve r fo rei gn de fen da nt s t rav el in g
ou ts id e o f th e Uni te d S ta te s’ territ or ia l wat ers . The fed eral co urts are i n c on se ns us on two ba si c res tri ct io ns to gi vi ng a la w
ex tra te rri to ria l ef

fect . Firs t, Co ng res s m

us t s ta te th atitin te nd s t he law t o h av e
ex tra te rri to ria l ef

fect
. Se e, e.g ., Uni te d Sta tes v. Fl or es , 28 9 U.S. 1 37 , 15 5, 5 3 S
. Ct . 58 0, 5 84 (19 33 ) (“ [C]rim in al st atue s o f th e Uni te d S ta te s ar e n otby im pl ic at io n g iv enex tra te rri to ria l ef fect .”). Thatrequi rem en t i s cl earl y m ethe re. 18 U.S.C. § 2 28 5( c) (“ The re i s ex tra te rri to ria l juris di ct io n o ve r anoff en se un de r th is sec ti on . . . . ”). Seco nd , app li cat io n o f th e la w m us t co m po rt wi th du e p ro ces s, m ean in g t ha t ap pl ic at io n o f th e la w “ m us t n otbe arb it rary or fu nd am en ta ll y un fai r.” Uni te d St at es v. Ca rd

al es , 16 8 F .3d54 8, 5 53 (1s t Ci r. 19 99 ); se e a ls o Un it ed Stat es v. How ar d- Ari as , 67 9 F .2d36 3, 3 71 (4t h C ir. 1 98 2) (pr in ci pl es of i nt ern at io na l l aw
m ay gi ve way to anex tra te rri to ria l fe de ral st atut e, bu t tha t s ta tu te m us t s ti ll
co m po rt wi th du e p ro ces s) ; Lea sc o Da ta Pro ces si ng Equ ip . Cor

p. v. Maxwe ll , 46 8 F.2 d 1 32 6, 1 33 4 (2 d C ir. 1 97 2) , ab ro ga te d o n o th er gr ou nd s b y Mor riso n v . Nat ’l Aus tral ia Ban k Ltd. , __U.S. __ , 13 0 S . Ct. 2 86 9 (2 01 0) (“ If Co ng res s h as
ex pr es sl y pre sc rib eda ru le with re sp ectto co nduc t o ut si de th e Uni te d S ta te s, . . . a
7Uni te d S ta te s co urt wo ul d b e b ou ndto fol lo w th e Co ng res si on al di rect io n u nl es s

th is wou ldvi ol at e th e due pro ces s cl au se of t he Fif th Am en dm en t.”) . In de te rm in in g wh ethe r anex tra te rri to ria l l aw co m po rts with due pro ces s, ap pe ll at e
co urts oft enco ns ul t i nt ern at io na l l aw pr in ci pl es su chas the ob jecti ve pri nc ip le , 4 th e p ro te ct iv e p rin ci pl e, or t he territ or ia l p rin ci pl e. Se e, e.g . , Uni te d Sta tes v. 5 6 Gon za le z, 77 6 F .2d93 1, 9 38 –4 1 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 5) (rel y in g o n t he pro te ct iv e pr in ci pl e to rejectde fen dant s’ arg um en ts th atap pl y in g t he pre de ces so r to th e Mar it im e Dru g Law En fo rcem en t Act(th e “ MDLEA”) to th em vi ol at eddu e
Under the objective principle, Congr ess may criminalize behavior that has a “nexus” to the 4 United States. Section 18 of the Restate ment (Second) of F oreign Relations provides: A state has jurisdiction to presc ribe a rule of law attaching leg al conseque nces to conduct that occur s outside its terri t o ry and cause s an eff ect within its territory , if either (a) the conduct and its eff ect are g ener ally rec ognized as constituent elements o f a crime or tort under the law of states that have rea sonably develope d l ega l sy stems, or (b)( i) the conduct and its eff ect are constituent elements of activity to which th e rul e applies; (ii) the eff ect within the territory is substantial; (iii) it occur s as a direc t a nd fore seea

ble result of the conduct outside the territory ; a nd (iv) the rule is not inconsistent with principles of j u s t i ce g ener ally rec ognized by states that have rea sonably

develope d leg al sy stems. Under the prote cti ve principle, Congr ess m ay criminalize behavior that may threaten t he 5 security of the United States. Section 33 of the Restatement (Second) of For eign Relations provides in pertinent par

t: (1) A state has jurisdiction to presc ribe a rule of law attaching leg al conseque nces to conduct outside its territory that threatens its security as a state or the operation of its g overnme ntal functions, provided the conduct is generally recogniz ed as a crime under the law of states tha t h a ve reasonably deve loped legal systems . (empha sis added)
. Under the territoria l principle, a “state has jurisdiction to presc ribe and enfor ce a rule of law 6 in the territory of another state to the extent provided by internat i o n al agreement with the other state.” Cardales , 168 F.3d a t 553 (citation and interna l quotation marks omitted).

8pr oc es s) ; Uni te d Sta tes v. Ma ri no -Ga rc ia , 67 9 F .2d13 73 , 13 80 –8 3 (1 1th C ir.

19 82 ) (n ot in g t he se as e xc ep ti on s t o t he ge ne ral pro hi bi ti on ag ai ns t cr im in al iz in g
co nduc t b y

for ei gn ers ou ts id e o f th e Uni te d S ta te s) ; Uni te d Sta tes v. S ue rt e , 29 1 F.3 d 3 66 , 37 0 (5 th Cir . 20 02 ); Ca rd al es , 16 8 F .3dat 5 53 . App el la nt s ar gu e th at DTVIA do es no t co m

po rt wi th du e p ro ces s b ecau se itfai ls to m eetth e n ex us requi rem en t (f

ro m th e o bjec ti ve pri nc ip le ) orth e requi rem en t tha t the cri m e m us t be “ co nd em

ne d uni ve rs al ly by

law- ab id in g n at io ns ” (fro m th e p ro te ct iv e pr in ci pl e). The se in te rn at io na l l aw pr in ci pl es , ho wev er, o nl y ap pl y to laws th atgo ve rn th e co nduc t o f

fl ag ge d ve ss el s. Inth e p as t we h av e h el d t ha t the ob jecti ve , pr ot ect iv e, an d t erri to ria l p rin ci pl es “ha ve no ap pl ic ab il it y inco nn ect io n wi th st at el es s v es se ls ” b ecau se su chve ss el s ar e “ in te rn at io na l p ari ah s” th atha ve “ no in te rn at io na ll y

reco gn iz edrig htto navi ga te free ly on t he hi gh sea s.” Mar in oGar ci a , 67 9 F .2dat 1 38 2. Ind eed , th e la w “pl aces no res tr ic ti on s up on a na ti on ’s rig htto subjec t s ta te le ss ve ss el s t o i ts juri sd ic ti on .” Id

. (em ph as is ad de d) ; se e a ls o Uni te d Sta tes v. Ren do n , 35 4 F .3d13 20 , 13 25 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (“ Bec au se st at el es s v es se ls do no t fa ll withi n t he ve il of a no th er s ov erei gn ’s territ or ia l pr ot ect io n, al l n at io ns cantre atth em as t he ir o wn t erri to ry

an d s ub ject t he m to th ei r la ws.” (c it at io n a ndin te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ); Uni te d Sta tes v. 9Rub ies , 61 2 F .2d39 7, 4 03 (5t h C ir. 1 97 9) ; Uni te d Sta tes v. Do min qu ez , 60 4 F .2d 7 30 4, 3 07 –0 9 (4 th Cir . 19 79 ). “ W e co nc lu de , th eref or e, th atin te rn at io na l l aw pe rm it s an y

na ti on to subjec t s ta te le ss ve ss el s o n the hi gh sea s t o i ts juri sd ic ti on . . . . Jur is di ct io n e xi st s s ol el y as aco ns eque nc e o f th e v es se l’s s ta tu s as st at el es s.” Mar in o- Gar ci a , 67 9 F .2dat 1 38 3. Be cau se ex tra te rri to ria l juris di ct io n i s p ro pe r,
we co nc lu de th atth e en actm en t o f th e DTVIA do es no t o ffen d t he Due P ro ces s Cl au se of the Co ns ti tu ti on . 2. Voi d- fo r- Vag ue ness Ch al le ng e. App el la nt s al so co nt en d t he DTVIA vio la te s due pro ces s b ecau se th e ph ras es “ se m i-s ub m ers ib le ve ss el ” an d “ in te ntto ev ad e” ar e v ag ue an d a re thu s
subjec t t o arb it rary enfo rcem en t. Exc ep t i n F irs t Am en dm en t ca se s, a p arty “‘ who
en ga ge s i n s om e co nduc t tha t i s cl earl y pro sc rib edcan no t co m

pl ai n o f th e
va gu en es s o f th e law as app li edto th e co nduc t o f ot he rs .’ ” Holde r v. Huma ni ta ri an La w Pro

je ct , __U.S. __ , 13 0 S . Ct. 2 70 5, 2 71 9 (2 01 0) (qu ot in g Hof fma n Es ta tes v. Fl ip si de, Hof fma n Es ta tes, In c. , 45 5 U.S. 4 89 , 49 5, 1 02 S. Ct. 11 86 , 11 91 (19 82 )). The refo re, we m us t d et erm in e whe th er the se ph ras es are
va gu e as ap pl ie d t o Ap pe ll an ts .
In Bonner v. City of

Pritchard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 & 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) , the 7 Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding prec edent the decisions of the Fi ft h Circuit rende red prior to October 1, 1981. 10Fi rs t, the ph ras e “ se m i-s ub m ers ib le ” cl earl y co ve rs th e Ves se l h ere a ndth us is no t v ag ue . The DTVIA de fin es “ se m i-s ub m ers ib le ” as “ an y wate rcra ft
co ns tru ct edor a dapt edto be cap ab le of o pe rat in g wi th m os t o f it s h ul l an d b ul k
un de r th e su rfac e o f th e wat er.” 4 6 U.S.C. § 70 50 2( f)(1 ). App el la nt s ar gu e th at th e te rm s “ cap ab le ” an d “ m os t” are i ns uf fic ie nt ly clearto pro vi de gu id el in es to la w enf or cem en t o ffi ci al s, an d t hu s s ub ject t he DTVIA to a rb it rary enfo rcem en t. App el la nt s’ Vess el , ho wev er, cl earl y fal ls withi n t he DTVIA’ s d efi ni ti on of s em isubm ers ib le un de r th e p la in Eng li sh m ean in g o f th os e te rm s.

“ Cap ab le ” m ean s “ ha vi ng att rib ut es requi redforpe rfo rm an ce, . . . hav in g . . . featur es pe rm it ti ng , [or ] ha vi ng ge ne ral
. . . ab il it y ” to do so m ethi ng . W eb st er’s Nin thNew Co ll eg ia te Dict io nary 20 3 (1 98 6) . And“ m os t” is a wid el y us edterm
m ean in g “ gr eat es t am ou nt .” Id . at 7 74 . The fac ts cle arl y sh ow tha t thi s Ves se l
was op erat in g o nl y

4 t o 1 2 i nc he s ab ov e th e wat er wh il e st at io na ry an d was ne arl y
co m pl et el y un de rwat er wh il e m ov in g. Si nc e th e Ves se l was op erat in g wi th th e

“ gr eat es t am ou nt ” o f it s b ul k u nd erwat er atth e ti m e o f de te ct io n, i t cl earl y ha d

“ featur es pe rm it ti ng ” itto do so . There fo re the ph ras e “ se m i-s ub m ers ib le ve ss el ”
co ve rs th e Ves se l. Lik ewis e, th e p hr as e “ in te ntto ev ad e” cl earl y co ve rs App el lant s’ con du ct
an d i s n otva gu e. Evad e m ean s “ to elu de by dex te rit y or s tra ta ge m .” W eb st er’s
11Nin thNew Co ll eg ia te Dict io nary 42 9. No t o nl y

do es th e p hr as e “ in te ntto ev ad e” ha ve a pl ai n andord in ary m ean in g, the DTVIA defi ne s t ha t p hr as e b y refe ren ce t o
an ot he r se ct io n o f th e co de . In s ub se ct io n (b ), th e DTVIA st at es th atth e p res en ce of an y of t he in di ci a in 46 U.S.C. § 7 05 07 (b) (1 )(A), (E), (F) , or (G) , or (b )(4 –6 ) is pr ima fa ci e ev id en ce o f in te ntto ev ad e d et ect io n. App el la nt s’ con du ctis cle arl y co ve redun de r bo th th e p la in -Eng li sh
m ean in g o f in te ntto ev ad e an d t he rel ev an t s ub se ct io ns . Defen dant s t rav el edina Ves se l tha t s atve ry

lo w inth e wat er, was pa in te d o cean -b lu e, an d h adno he ad
li gh ts or s ig na ls . Rath er tha n u si ng on e o f Co lu m bi a’s m ajorpo rts to ge t the Ves se l t o s ea, Defe nd an ts su rrep ti ti ou sl y gu id editdo wn a s m al l es tu ary ne ar the Ecu ad or ia n c oa st . The Ves se l b or e n o re gi st rat io n n um be rs or o th er m ark in gs . It tra ve le d m or e sl owl y

inth e d ay

th anat n ig ht , andwas c on fig ur edto crea te ve ry li tt le wake when m ov in g a ndno wake when st il l. The Vess el san k upo n a rri va l o f th e Res cu e. Ther e is su ffi ci en t ev id en ce h ere tha t “ in te ntto ev ad e” co ve rs App el la nt s’ con du ct , andth eref or e th atph ras e is no t v ag ue as app li edto th em . App el la nt s ad di ti on al ly argu e th atbe cau se on e o f th e § 70 50 7 i nd ic iaof

“ in te ntto ev ad e” i s “ th e co nf ig ur at io n o f th e v es se l t o ri de lo w inth e wat er o r pr es en t a l ow h ul l p ro fil e to av oi d b ei ng de te ct edvi su al ly or by rad ar”— es se nt ia ll y

th e d efi ni ti on of s em i-s ub m ers ib le —the st atut e is cir cu la r an d
12th us va gu e. Thi s ar gu m en t, h owe ve r, ha s n ot hi ng to do with v ag ue ne ss . Wha t

App el la nt s ar e actua ll y

arg ui ng is th atth is pro vi si on vi ol at es du e p ro ces s b ecau se itsh ift s t he bu rd enof p ers ua si on on th e is su e o f “ in te ntto ev ad e” fr om th e go ve rn m en t t o Ap pe ll an ts . Eve n a s t o t hi s ar gu m en t, h owe ve r, App el la nt s fa il . It i s t ru e th atwhi le Co ng res s h as th e p owe r to m ak e th e p ro of of o ne fact pr ima fa ci e ev id en ce o f
an ot he r, a st atut e m ay

no t “ sh iftth e b ur de n o f pr oo f to th e d efen da ntby pres um in g [o ne ele m en t] up on pro of of t he ot he r el em en ts of t he off en se .” Pat te rs on v. New Y ork, 43 2 U.S. 1 97 , 21 5, 9 7 S . Ct. 2 31 9, 2 32 9 (1 97 7) ; se e a ls o Un it ed Stat es v. Ti no co , 30 4 F .3d10 88 , 11 07 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (“ [O]nce the leg is la ture h as de fin ed cert ai n fa ct s as ele m en ts of t he off en se , th e le gi sl atur e can no t s hi ft t he bu rd enof pe rs ua si on as t o t ho se ele m en ts to th e d efen da nt , no r can th e le gi sl atur e cre at e an y pr es um pt io ns as t o t ho se ele m en ts th atne ga te th e d efen da nt ’s pre su m pt io n o f in no cen ce.”) . Butth is pro vi si on do es no t s hi ft t he bu rd enon to App el la nt s fo r at le as t two re as on s. Fi rs t, tha t the de si gn of t he ve ss el canserve as pr ima fa ci e
ev id en ce o f in te ntto ev ad e m erel y m ean s t ha t s uc h e vi de nc e is leg al ly suf fic ie ntto fin d s uc h a n i nt en t, an d d oe s n otsh iftth e b ur de n o f pe rs ua si on on to App el la nt s. The go ve rn m en t i s s ti ll ch arg edwith c on vi nc in g t he fact -fi nd er tha t the de fen da nt in te nd edto ev ad e d et ect io n. 13Seco nd , th ere i s m uc h m or e ev id en ce h ere o f “ in te ntto ev ad e” tha n m erel y th e fac t tha t the Vess el is semi-subm ers ib le : the Vess el ’s cam ou fla ge , it s l ackof he ad li gh ts , it s s urrep ti ti ou s ro ut e to th e o cean , andit s s ta te le ss ne ss . The p hr as e

“ in te ntto ev ad e d et ect io n” is th eref or e n otva gu e, no r do es itvi ol at e due pro ces s by pres um in g t he ele m en t upo n p ro of of a no th er el em en t o f th e cri m e. 3. Pro ced

ur al Due Pr oc es s C

ha ll en ge . App el la nt s ar gu e th atth e DTVIA vi ol at es du e p ro ces s b ecau se iteffe ct iv el y red efi ne s t he off

en se of d ru g t raff

ic ki ng , eli m in at in g t he requi rem en t o f drug po ss es si on . The Co ns ti tu ti onpro hi bi ts pre su m in g a n i ng red ie ntof a n o ffen se up on pro of

of o th er fa ct s, o r sh ift in g c ert ai n e le m en ts of a n o ffen se fro m an el em en t t o a n a ffi rm at iv e d efen se . Pat te rs on , 43 2 U.S. at21 5. The Co ns ti tu ti on
wou ldth eref

or e p ro hi bi t re de fin in g an o ffen se so th atth e ab se nc e o f anele m en t o f th e o rig in al cri m e b eco m es anaffi rm at iv e d efen se . Whi le itis pro babl y

tru e th atth e DTVIA was en act edinpa rt t o d eal with th e p ro bl em

of l os in g dru g e vi de nc e to th e si nk in g o f se m i-s ub m ers ib le s, the DTVIA is no t a dru g- tra ffi ck in g s ta tu te . In en act in g t he DTVIA, Con gr es s ch os e to pro hi bi t an en ti rel y

ne w evi l, n otto red efi ne anol d o ne . Ind eed , indi sc us si ng th e en act m en t o f th e DTVIA, Con gr es s co ns id eredth atth es e v es se ls are u se fu l n ot
on ly in dr ug

tra ffi ck in g, b utals o i n t raff ic ki ng of we ap on s an d p eo pl e. 15 4 C on g.
14Rec . H7,2 38 –3 9 (d ai ly ed. Ju ly 29, 2 00 8) (st at em en t o f Rep . Ste ve Co he n) ; 1 54

Co ng . Rec. H1 0,2 53 (da il y ed . Sep t. 2 7, 2 00 8) (st at em en t o f Rep . Dani el Lun gr en ). Co ng res s fu rth er fo un d t ha t o th er tha n t he se il ls , th es e v es se ls ha ve no ut il it ari anva lu e to so ci ety . 15 4 C on g. Re c. H10 ,25 2– 54 (da il y ed . Sep t. 2 7, 2 00 8) (s ta te m en t o f Rep . Dani el Lun gr en ). Bas edon th es e fi nd in gs , Con gr es s de te rm in edto cri m in al iz e no t on lyth e und erl y in g c on du ct —wh at ev er tha t co nduc t
m ay be —b utals o t rav el in g o n t he ve ss el it se lf. App el la nt s s pe ci fic al ly argu e th atth e DTVIA pl aces th e b ur de n o n the m to pr ov e th atth ey

are n ottra ffi ck in g dru gs , bu t thi s i s s im pl y in co rrec t. Eve n i f App el la nt s p ro ve d tha t the y were n ottra ffi ck in g dru gs , th ey wou ldst il l b e g ui lt y of vi ol at in g t he DTVIA if th e g ov ern m en t p ro ve d, b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t, al l of th e el em en ts of t he cri m e. Becaus e th e DTVIA do es no t s hi ft t he bu rd enof 8 pr oo f to th e acc us edas t o a ny elem en t o f th e cri m e, bu t ra th er cr eat es a who ll y
ne w cri m e th atCo ng res s i s wi th in it s ri gh t t o d efi ne , th e Due Pro ces s C laus e is no t vi ol at ed
. 4. Su bs ta nt iv e Due Pro ces s C ha ll en ge . Nor do the DTVIA’s aff

irmative defe nses offe r any support for Appellants’ claim. As an 8 aff irmative defe nse, a defe ndant can show that the vessel was, at the time of the offe nse: (A) a U.S. vessel or a vessel lawfull y re gi s t er ed in a fore ign country ; (B ) “cla ssed by and designed in acc ordanc e wi t h t h e ru l es of a classification society ;” (C) opera ting in a g overnme nt licensed activity ; or (D) “equippe d with and u s i n g” s o m e s o rt of vessel monitoring sy stem. 18 U.S.C. § 2285(e) . There is no defense if a de fenda nt is found not to be traff ickingin narc otics. 15App el la nt s b rie fly argu e th atth e DTVIA vi ol at es th ei r subs tant iv e due

pr oc es s ri gh ts be cau se itis no t ra ti on al ly relat edto an y leg it im at e g ov ern m en t in te res t. Thi s i s n ota ri go ro us tes t an d i s g en eral ly easi ly m et . W e m us t s im pl y de te rm in e whe th er “ an y

setof f act s m ay be reas on ab ly con cei ve d t o ju st ify le gi sl at io n.” TRM, Inc . v. Uni te d Sta tes , 52 F.3d94 1, 9 45 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ) (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d)
. Co ng res s h as fou ndth atop erat in g s uc h v es se ls is a “ se rio us in te rn at io na l pr ob le m , faci li ta te s t ran sn at io na l cr im e . . . andpre se nt s a s pe ci fic th reatto th e
sa fety of m ari ti m e n av ig at io n a ndth e se curit y of t he Uni te d S ta te s.” 4 6 U.S.C. § 70 50 1. Th es e types of s hi ps ha ve no ut il it y ot he r th anth e tr an sp ort o f drug s o r weap on s. 1 54 Co ng . Rec. H1 0,2 52 –5 4 (d ai ly ed. Sep t. 2 7, 2 00 8) (st at em en t o f Rep . Dani el Lun gr en ). They are cap ab le of t rav el in g l on g d is tanc es witho ut refu el in g, ar e d iff

ic ul t t o d et ect , andare ea si ly dis po sabl e upo n d et ect io n. Id

. ; 1 54 Co ng . Rec. H7 ,23 8– 39 (da il y ed . Ju ly 29, 2 00 8) (st at em en t o f Rep . Ste ve Co he n)
. Cl earl y th e g ov ern m en t’s i nt eres t i n e li m in at in g t he us e o f th es e types of v es se ls is le gi ti m at e, an d t he st atut e is narro wly ta il or edto su itth atin te res t. The refo re App el la nt s’ subs ta nt iv e due pro ces s cl ai m lac ks m eri t. B. Doubl e Je op ardy

Cla im
.

16App el la nt s al so see k t o i nv ok e o ne of t he th ree r el at edpro te ct io ns affo rd ed

un de r th e Fi fth Am en dm en t’s d oubl e jeop ardy claus e, th atof p ro hi bi ti ng m ul ti pl e pu ni sh m en ts forth e sa m e o ffen se . This co urt re vi ews de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s de ni al of am ot io n t o d is m is s a c ha rg e o n d oubl e jeop ardy gro un ds
. Uni te d Sta tes v. Th ur st on , 36 2 F .3d13 19 , 13 22 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). In d et erm in in g wh ethe r App el la nt s h av e b een ch arg edtwi ce fo r th e sa m e o ffen se , we app ly the st an da rd
an no un cedin Blo ckb ur

ge r v. Un it ed

Stat es , whi chst at es th at“ whe re the same act
ortra ns act io n c on st itut es a vi ol at io n o f tw o dis ti nc t st atut ory pro vi si on s, the tes t t o be ap pl ie d t o d et erm in e whe th er the re are two off en se s o r on ly one is whet he r eac h pr ov is io n re qu ire s p ro of

of a n a dd it io na l fa ctwhi chth e o th er d oe s n ot .” 28 4 U.S. 29 9, 3 04 , 52 S. Ct. 1 80 , 18 2 (1 93 2) (em ph as is ad de d)
. Ord in ari ly, th e co urt m

us t o nl y lo okto th e el em en ts of e ach cri m e to de te rm in e whe th er the re ar e two off en se s o r on e. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ha ss ou n , 47 6 F.3 d 1 18 1, 1 18 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . Mor eo ve r, itha s l on g b een he ldth atwhen th e
co ns pi racy andsubs ta nt iv e ch arg es de riv e fro m se pa ra te stat ut es , “ th e
co m m is si on of the subs ta nt iv e o ffen se an d aco ns pi racy to c omm ititare s ep arat e
an d d is ti nc t o ffen se s” be cau se th e ch arg e fo r co ns pi racy requ ire s an ele m en t n ot

17requi redby the subs ta nt iv e o ffen se : p ro of of a n a gr eem en t. Pin ker to n v . Uni te d St at es , 32 8 U.S. 6 40 , 64 3, 6 6 S . Ct. 1 18 0, 1 18 2 (1 94 6)
. 9 W e h av e p rev io us ly hel d t ha t wh ere t wo co un ts are “ ch arg edun de r th e sa m e st atut ory pro vi si on ,” Blo ckb ur

ge r m ay requi re an in qu iry beyondth e el em en ts of th e o ffen se to de te rm in e whe th er the re are sep arat e cri m es “ in su bs ta nc e a s w el l a s fo rm. ” Has so un , 47 6 F .3dat 1 18 6. Whil e th e Gov ern m en t al le ge s t ha t the “ ai di ng
an d abe tt in g” ch arg e ari se s u nd er b oth 1 8 U.S.C. § § 2 & 2 28 5, we h av e st at edth at § 2 “ do es no t re pr es en t a d is ti nc t o ffen se , bu t ra th er s im pl y co di fie s an alt ern at e th eo ry of l iabi li ty” th atis in he ren t i n e ve ry cri m in al ch arg e. Has so un , 47 6 F .3dat 11 84 n.2 . There fo re, the two ch arg es bo th ari se un de r th e sa me st atut e, 18 U.S.C. § 2 28 5. Eve n l oo ki ng to th e subs ta nc e, ho wev er, i t i s cl ear t he re ar e two off en se s he re. The co ns pi racy char ge requi res co ll ab or at io n o n t he part o f th e Defen da nt s to vi ol at e th e st atut e whi le th e subs ta nt iv e cri m e co nt ai ns no su chrequi rem en t. Each Defen da ntadm it te d t o a gr eei ng with a no th er p ers on to em ba rkon th is tri p. Each carr ie d i de nt ifi cat io n a ndso m e am ou ntof c as h. In ord er t o fu rth er the ir g oa l of op erat in g t hi s Ves se l, Defe nd an ts to oktu rn s n av ig at in g i t. Inord er t o fu rth er

One of the only notable exceptions to this rule is wher e the substantive offe nse require s the 9 agree ment o f t wo o r m o re parties, an exception not applicable in this case . United States v. W ayersk i , 624 F.3d 1342 ( 11th Cir. 2010). 18th ei r go al of e va di ng de te ct io n, Def en da nt s t oo k turns sca nn in g t he ho riz on an d lo ok in g fo r on co m in g s hi ps or p la ne s. All of t hi s s ho ws tha t, ab ov e an d b ey on d th e el em en ts of t he DTVIA, the Defen da nt s co ns pi redto vi ol at e th e DTVIA. App el la nt s ar gu e, ho wev er, tha t the Blo ckb ur ge r rul e sh ou ldno t ev enap pl y he re b ecau se Co ng res s d idno t i nt en d t o a ll ow fo r cu m ul at iv e p un is hm en t. The Blo ckb ur ge r rul e, as a ru le of s ta tu to ry co ns tru ct io n, i s u se d t o d et erm in e whe th er Co ng res s i nt en de d tha t two o ffen se s b e p un is he d c um ul at iv el y . Has so un , 47 6 F .3d at11 85 (ci ti ng Alb erna z v. Un it ed Stat es , 45 0 U.S. 3 33 , 33 7, 1 01 S. Ct. 1 13 7, 11 41 (19 81 )). The refo re, ev enif t he Blo ckb ur ge r tes t i s m et , Con gr es s m ay st at e th atitdo es no t i nt en d c um ul at iv e p un is hm en t. Giv enth e Fed eral Gov ern m en t’s lo ng hi st ory

of c ha rg in g a ndco nv ic ti ng de fen da nt s o f bo th co ns pi raci es an d
subs ta nt iv e o ffen se s, tha t the leg is la ti ve hi st ory of DTVIA m ak es no m en ti on of a de si re t o m ak e eac h o ffen se inth atsec ti on ex cl us iv e, an d t ha t the DTVIA sp eci fic al ly pro vi de s fo r bo th a co ns pi racy char ge an d asubs ta nt iv e o ffen se , we fin d t hi s ar gu m en t m eri tl es s. C. Sta tu to ry

Co ns tru ct io n Qu es ti on . App el la nt s ar gu e th atth e p hr as es “ na vi ga ti ng . . . th ro ug h, o r fro m wate rs be y on d t he ou te r li mitof the territ or ia l s ea o f a s in gl e co un try or a l at eral li m itof th atco un try’ s t erri to ria l s ea wi th anad jacen t co un try” and“ witho utna ti on al it y ”
19are e le m en ts of t he cri m e whi chm us t b e p ro ve d b y

th e g ov ern m en t b ey on d a
reas on ab le do ub t. Mo reo ve r, App el la nt s ar gu e th atth e g ov ern m en t m us t p ro ve
sc ie nt er—th atis , Defen da nt s kn ow in gl yact edwith re sp ectto th es e el em en ts . This
co urt re vi ews de no vo is su es of s ta tu to ry co ns tru ct io n. Uni te d Sta tes v. S vet e , 55 6 F.3 d 1 15 7, 1 16 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (enba nc ). W e b eg in qu es ti on s o f st atut ory co ns tru ct io n wi thth e la ng ua ge of t he st atut e. Hughes Ai rc ra

ft Co . v. Jac ob so n , 52 5 U.S. 4 32 , 43 8, 1 19 S. Ct. 7 55 , 76 0 (1 99 9) . The DTVIA pr oh ib it s op erat [in g]
. . . o r em

ba rk [in g] in an y subm ers ib le ve ss el or se m isubm ers ib le ve ss el th at is witho ut na ti on al it y an d th a t is na vi ga ti ng or ha s na vi ga te d in to , th ro ug h, or fro m wate rs be y on d th e ou te r li m it of th e te rri to ria l se a of a si ng le co un try o r a la te ral li m it of th at co un try’ s t e rrit or ia l se a with an ad jacen t co un try, with th e in te nt to e v a d e de te ct io n. . . .
18 U.S.C. § 2 28 5( a). Mo reo ve r, subs ect io n (g ) of th e DTVIA in co rp or at es 46 U.S.C. § 7 05 04 of t he MDLEA, whic h s ta te s, “ Ju ris di ct io n o f th e Uni te d S ta te s with re sp ectto a ve ss el subjec t t o t hi s ch ap te r is no t an ele m en t o f th e o ffen se . Ju ris di ct io na l i ss ue s ar is in g u nd er thi s ch ap te r are pre li m in ary qu es ti on s o f la w to be de te rm in edso le ly by

th e tr ia l ju dg e.” Und er thi s p ro vi si on , pro vi si on s o f th e 1 0

We have previously upheld the constitutionality of removing these jurisdictional questions 1 0 from the jury

in the context of the MDL EA. See Tinoco , 304 F.3d at 1108. 20DTVIA th atare s ol el y juri sd ic ti on al are n otele m en ts go in g t o c ul pabi li ty tha t
m us t b e p ro ve d t o t he fact -fi nd er. Mo reo ve r, “‘ th e ex is te nc e o f th e fac t tha t
co nf ers . . . juri sd ic ti on ne edno t b e o ne inth e m in d o f th e act orat t he ti m e h e pe rp etrat es th e actm ad e cri m in al by the fed eral st atut e.’ ” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ca mpa , 52 9 F .3d98 0, 1 00 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (qu ot in g Uni te d Sta tes v. Feo la , 42 0 U.S. 67 1, 6 77 n.9 , 95 S. Ct. 1 25 5, 1 26 0 n .9 (1 97 5) ). “ [K]nowl ed ge of juri sd ic ti on al fact s i s n otrequi redinde te rm in in g g ui lt
. . . .” Id

. (quo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Mun cy , 52 6 F .2d12 61 , 12 64 (5t h C ir. 1 97 6) ). Becaus e App el lant s
co nc ed e th atth es e el em en ts be ar atlea stpa rtl y on juri sd ic ti on , we nee d o nl y de te rm in e whe th er the y

are so le lyjuri sd ic ti on al or b ear s im ul tane ou sl y

on juri sd ic ti on an d c ul pabi li ty. Fi rs t, we h ol d t ha t the ph ras e “ na vi ga ti ng . . . th ro ug h, o r fro m wate rs be y on d t he ou te r li mitof the territ or ia l s ea o f a s in gl e co un try or a l at eral li m itof th atco un try’ s t erri to ria l s ea wi th anad jacen t co un try” is so le ly j ur is di ct io na l, an d do es no t b ear o n c ul pabi li ty. The l oc at io n o f th e co m m is si on of acri m e is a juri sd ic ti on al factinne arl y all Am eri canlaws . Ind eed , cri m es co m m it te d a cro ss st at e li ne s ar e o fte n t rie d i n fe de ral co urts an d c rimes co m m it te d i n o ne st at e o r in te nd edto ha ve aneffe ctina st at e are tri edinth atst at e’s co urts . It i s d iff ic ul t, i f
no t i m po ss ib le , to im ag in e h ow ch an gi ng th e lo cat io n o f a cri m e b ears on th e
21cu lp ab il it y

of the de fen da ntan d, i nd eed , App el la nt s wer e unabl e to pre se nta si ng le reas on why lo cat io n wo ul d e ve r be ar o n c ul pabi li ty. W e fi ndit in co m pr eh en si bl e th ata de fen da ntfou nd11 m il es fro m th e co as t o f Co lu m

bi a
wou ldne ces saril y

be les s cu lp ab le th ana de fen da ntfou nd13 m il es fro m th e sa m e
co as t. We con cl ud e, th en , th atth is ph ras e b ears so le ly on t he juri sd ic ti onof t he Uni te d S ta te s an d n eedno t b e p ro ve n b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t n orpro ve n wi th
sc ie nt er. W e n eedno t ad dr es s, h owe ve r, whe th er the “ witho utna ti on al ity ” el em en t be ars so le ly on ju ris di ct io n o r onjuri sd ic ti on an d c ul pabi li ty. W e co nc lu de fro m th e rec or d tha t the re i s ample e vi de nc e th atApp el la nt s kne w th e Ves se l was no t reg is te redinCo lu m

bi a. The b oa t h adno m ark in gs , reg is tra ti on pape rs , or fl ag s,
no r di d i t l eav e fro m

any on e o f Co lu m

bi a’s m ajor

po rts . Becau se any

erro r in in te rp ret at io n wo ul d b e h arm le ss , we nee d n otad dr es s thi s i ss ue furth er. D. Suff ic ie nc y of t he Evi de nc e Cl ai m . App el la nt s ar gu e th atth e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o c on vi ctth em of vi ol at in g t he DTVIA. Prim ari ly, App el la nt s ar gu e th atth ere i s i ns uf fic ie nt 1 1 Appellants essentially use this argument to reha sh the argument that the term “knowing ly” 1 1 should apply to “that is without nationality” and “navig ating
. . . through, or from water s beyond the outer limit of the territoria l sea of a single country

or a latera l limi t of that country ’s territorial sea with an adjac ent country .” Given our earlier conclusion that the “international water s” element g oes to jurisdiction and not culpability , and that there is ample evidenc e that the Def endants knew the Vessel wa s stateless, we w ill not address the suffic iency challeng e as to those e lements here
. 22ev id en ce t o p ro ve th e cri m e o f co ns pi racy andth e el em en t o f “ in te ntto ev ad e

de te ct io n.” Thi s C ou rt r ev ie ws de no vo a ch al le ng e to th e su ffi ci en cy of t he
ev id en ce, “ vi ewin g t he ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Wright , 39 2 F .3d12 69 , 12 73 (11 thCir . 20 04 ) (ci ta ti on an d qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . The que st io n i s wh ethe r “ an yrat io na l trie r of

factco ul d ha ve fou ndth e es se nt ia l el em en ts of t he cri m e b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t.” Ja cks on v. Vir

gi ni a , 44 3 U.S. 3 07 , 31 9, 9 9 S . Ct. 2 78 1, 2 78 9 (1 97 9)
. Afte r a tho ro ug h re vi ew of th e rec or d, we fi rs t co nc lu de th atth e ev id en ce pr es en te d was m or e th anleg al ly suf fic ie ntto fin d t ha t the App el la nt s h adan

“ in te ntto ev ad e.” Mo reo ve r, we co nc lu de th atth ere i s s uf fic ie ntev id en ce t o pr ov e th atApp el lant s co ns pi redto vi ol at e th e DTVIA. To su st ai n aco nv ic ti on for
co ns pi racy, the go ve rn m en t m us t p ro ve (1) “ th e ex is te nc e o f anag reem en t t o ach ie ve anun la wfu l o bjec ti ve ”; (2) “ th e d efen da nt [s ’] kn owi ng an d v ol un ta ry pa rti ci pa ti on inth e co ns pi racy”; an d (3 ) “ anov ertactinfurth eran ce o f th e
co ns pi racy.” Uni te d Sta tes v. US Inf ra stru ct ur e, In c. , 57 6 F .3d11 95 , 12 03 (11 th Ci r. 20 09 ). A con sp ira cy m ay , in de edus ua ll y

m us t, b e p ro ve n thr ou gh ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce. Uni te d Sta tes v. Gu pt a , 46 3 F .3d11 82 , 11 94 (11 th Cir
. 20 06 ). The fa ct -fi nd er’s co nc lu si on “ sh ou ldno t b e d is tu rb edas l on g a s i t i s

23supp orte d b y th e ev id en ce.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ri ch ar ds on , 53 2 F .3d12 79 , 12 84 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8)
. By th ei r own tes ti m on y , th ree o f th e fo urDefen da nt s wer e rec ru it edforth is jou rn ey by the same m an . They tra ve le d t og ethe r to th e si te of t he Vess el ne ar the Ecu ad orbo rd er. Two o f th e Defen dant s ad m it te d t ha t the y kn ew su chVess el s
were co m m on ly use d fo r sm

ug gl in g dru gs . Each Def en da ntna vi ga te d t he Vess el du rin g t he ir t rip purs uantto in st ru ct io ns rece iv edvi a rad io . Each Def en da ntha d a sp eci fic “pa rt” to pl ay

inth e jou rn ey . Each c arri eda pl as ti c b ag carry in g n earl y id en ti cal co nt en ts : s om e fo rm of i de nt ifi cat io n a nda la rg e am ou ntof U.S. an d Co lu m bi ancurren cy . This is cert ai nl y su ffi ci en t ev id en ce tha t the App el lant s
en ga ge d i n aco ns pi racy to v io la te th e DTVIA to warran t uph ol di ng th e v erd ic t o f th e fac t-f in de r. E. Excl us io n o f Exp ertTest im on y . Mo sque ra ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredinex cl ud in g e xp erttes ti m on y th athe cla im s wo ul d h av e ai de d i n h is de fen se th athe di d n otkn owi ng ly trav el in to in te rn at io na l wat ers . This co urt re vi ews a di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on with
res pe ctto th e ad m is si bi li ty of ex pe rt t es ti m on y foranab us e o f di sc ret io n andcan
rev ers e th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng on ly if itis m an ife st ly erron eo us . Uni te d Sta tes v. Fra zi er , 38 7 F .3d12 44 , 12 58 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (en banc ).
24Mo sque ra’s ex pe rt p ro po se d t o t es ti fy th at , acco rd in g t o t he Co lu m bi an Co ns ti tu ti on , Col um

bi a cl ai m s 2 00 naut ic al -m il es off it s co as t as it s t erri to ria l wate rs . Mos qu era s ti pu la te d t ha t h e was no t ch al le ng in g t he di st ric t co urt’s de te rm in at io n t ha t the ph ras e “be y on d t he ou te r li mitof t he territ or ia l s ea o f a si ng le co un try” refer s t o t he 12 naut ic al -m il es reco gn iz edby the Uni te d S ta te s. In st ead , th e te st im on y

serve d t o s ho w th atitwou ldbe reas on ab le forMo sque ra t o be li ev e th at , at the ti m e o f in te rd ic ti on , he was no t i n i nt ern at io na l wat ers . This , he arg ue s, g oe s t o t he m en ta l s ta te of “ kn owi ng ” h e was na vi ga ti ng in in te rn at io na l wat ers . Becau se we co nc lu de th atth e p hr as e “ na vi ga ti ng in in te rn at io na l wat ers ” g oe s t o juris di ct io n ra th er than c ul pabi li ty, th is tes ti m on y
was irr el ev an t an d the di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n re fu si ng to adm itit
. II I. Co ncl us io n. Bec au se we co nc lu de th atno ne of t he App el la nt s’ arg um en ts ha s m eri t, we affi rm th ei r co nv ic ti on s. AFFIRMED.

25App en di x A

i