Opinion ID: 203028
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency Claim of Morelis

Text: Given the previous sufficiency analysis, Morelis's sufficiency claim need not detain us. In addition to the evidence recited above, the jury heard Agent Santiago's testimony that Morelis had admitted being informed by Tejeiro about the illicit purpose of the Sea Atlantic 's voyage and also had been told that $40,000 would be paid for the undertaking. The secret compartment was under the bed in his berth, [18] and Rodríguez-Durán testified that Tejeiro told him to put the sacks of drugs there. As noted above, the government's narcotics expert, Vidal, testified that a drug shipment of such a high value would not be entrusted to someone in whom the ringleader had no confidence. The jury thus could have drawn the inference that Morelis's proximity to the drugs reflected Tejeiro's trust in him. In light of Morelis's acceptance of the job and the inferences that plausibly could be drawn concerning both the crew as a whole and Morelis individually, the jury reasonably could conclude that the evidence supported the `requisite two-step inference': (1) that the vessel was engaged in obviously illegal activity, and (2) . . . Appellant was ready to assist in the criminal enterprise. Bravo, 489 F.3d at 9 (quoting Jiménez-Pérez, 869 F.2d at 11). Morelis also contends that his conviction is flawed based on the government's failure to prove that the Sea Atlantic was subject to United States jurisdiction. Specifically, he emphasizes a lack of evidence that the cocaine was directed toward, or otherwise would affect, the United States. We previously have held that the MDLEA does not contain such a nexus requirement; the flag nation's consent to jurisdiction is sufficient. See Bravo, 489 F.3d at 7 (citing cases); see also United States v. Cardales, 168 F.3d 548, 553 (1st Cir.1999) ([D]ue process does not require the government to prove a nexus between a defendant's criminal conduct and the United States in a prosecution under the MDLEA when the flag nation has consented to the application of United States law to the defendants.). The evidence was therefore sufficient to establish Morelis's aiding and abetting liability.