Opinion ID: 3009517
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The chief question presented in these appeals

Text: concerns the meaning of the term vessel without nationality under 46 U.S.C. App. § 1903. The provision under which the defendants were convicted, 46 U.S.C. App. § 1903(a), applies to, 1 . The District Court of the Virgin Islands had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3241, which gives that court concurrent jurisdiction with the federal district courts over offenses against the laws of the United States committed upon the high seas. While the TUTO may not have been on the high seas when it was stopped near Saba, there was ample evidence, including the statement of the crew members that the ship had departed from Barranquilla, Colombia, to show that a violation of 18 U.S.C. App. § 1903(a) had occurred on the high seas. among others, any person on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The term vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is defined in 46 U.S.C. App. § 1903(c)(1)(A)2 as including a vessel without 2 . This provision states in full: For purposes of this section, a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States includes - (A) a vessel without nationality; (B) a vessel assimilated to a vessel without nationality in accordance with paragraph (2) of article 6 of the 1958 Convention on the High Seas; (C) a vessel registered in a foreign nation where the flag nation has consented or waived objection to the enforcement of United States law by the United States; (D) a vessel located within the customs waters of the United States; and (E) a vessel located in the territorial waters of another nation, where the nation consents to the enforcement of United States law by the United States. Consent or waiver of objection by a foreign nation to the enforcement of United States law by the United States under subparagraph (C) or (E) of this paragraph may be obtained by radio, telephone, or similar oral or electronic means, and may be proved by certification of the Secretary of State or the Secretary's designee. 46 U.S.C. App. § 1903(c)(1). Article 6, paragraph (2) of the 1958 Convention on the High Seas, to which reference is made in 46 U.S.C. App. § 1903(c)(1)(B), provides: nationality,3 and the latter term is defined in 46 U.S.C. App. § 1903(c)(2) as follows: For purposes of this section, a vessel without nationality includes (A) a vessel aboard which the master or person in charge makes a claim of registry, which claim is denied by the flag nation whose registry is claimed; and (..continued) A ship which sails under the flags of two or more States, using them according to convenience, may not claim any of the nationalities in question with respect to any other State, and may be assimilated to a ship without nationality. Convention on the High Seas of 1959, 13 U.S.T. 2312, T.I.A.S. No. 5200, Art. 6(2). In this case, the prosecution relied solely on the theory that the TUTO was without nationality under 46 U.S.C. App. § 1903(c)(1)(A). 3 . The First, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits have held that, when the facts bearing on whether a vessel is without nationality are in dispute, this question should be resolved at trial. See United States v. Piedrahita-Santiago, 931 F.2d 127, 129 (1st Cir. 1991); United States v. Potes, 880 F.2d 1475, 1478 n.1 (1st Cir. 1989); United States v. Ayarza-Garcia, 819 F.2d 1043, 1048-49 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 969 (1987); United States v. Canales, 744 F.2d 413, 434 (5th Cir. 1984); see also United States v. Nukida, 8 F.3d 665, 670 (9th Cir. 1993). We agree with these holdings. See Fogel v. Chestnutt, 668 F.2d 100, 105-07 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 828 (1982); footnote 1, supra. Our decision in United States v. Wright-Barker, 784 F.2d 161, 170 (3rd Cir. 1986), does not compel a contrary result because the question at issue was not addressed by the court in that case. Cf. United States v. Martinez-Hidalgo, 993 F.2d 1052, 1057 & n.10 (3rd Cir. 1993)(stating that the disposition in Wright-Barker was inconsistent with the approach taken in Piedrahita-Santiago). `[Q]uestions which merely lurk in the record, neither brought to the attention of the court nor ruled upon, are not to be regarded as having been so decided as to constitute precedents.' Grant v. Shalala, 989 F.2d 1332, 1341 (3rd Cir. 1993), quoting Webster v. Fall, 266 U.S. 507, 511 (1925). (B) any vessel aboard which the master or person in charge fails, upon request of an officer of the United States empowered to enforce applicable provisions of United States law, to make a claim of nationality or registry for that vessel. 46 U.S.C. App. § 1903(c)(2) (emphasis added). The statute then addresses the concept of a claim of nationality or registry as follows: For purposes of this section, a claim of nationality or registry only includes (A) possession on board the vessel and production of documents evidencing the vessel's nationality in accordance with article 5 of the 1958 Convention on the High Seas;4 (B) flying its flag nation's ensign or flag; or (C) a verbal claim of nationality or registry by the master or person in charge of the vessel. 46 U.S.C. App. § 1903(c)(3) (emphasis added). 4 . Article 5(1) reads as follows: Each State shall fix the conditions for the grant of its nationality to ships, for the registration of ships in its territory, and for the right to fly its flag. Ships have the nationality of the State whose flag they are entitled to fly. There must exist a genuine link between the State and the ship; in particular, the State must effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control in administrative, technical and social matters over ships flying its flag. Convention on the High Seas of 1958, 13 U.S.T. 2312, T.I.A.S. No. 5200, Article 5(1). In interpreting these provisions, we first note that 46 U.S.C. App. § 1903(c)(2) does not attempt to provide an exhaustive definition of the term vessel without nationality. Instead, this provision states that this term includes vessels that fall within the categories set out in subsections (A) and (B). The word include means to. . . list. . .as a part or component of a whole or of a larger group, class, or aggregate. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1143 (1971). Thus, if the term includes in 46 U.S.C. App. § 1903(c)(2) is interpreted in accordance with ordinary usage, the categories set out in subsections (A) and (B) are merely parts or components of the entire set of vessels without nationality. This interpretation is reinforced by the contrast between the term includes in 46 U.S.C. App. § 1903(c)(2) and the phrase only includes in 46 U.S.C. App. § 1903(c)(3). This contrast dispels any suggestion that the statutory drafters sloppily used the term includes in 46 U.S.C. App. § 1903(c)(2) when they meant to say only includes. Consequently, it seems clear from the statutory language that the term vessel without nationality encompasses, not only those vessels that come within the categories described in subsections (A) and (B), but other vessels as well. Unfortunately, neither the text of 46 U.S.C. App. § 1903 nor its legislative history5 makes clear precisely which 5 . See S. Rep. No. 530, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. (1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5986; H.R. Rep. No. 547, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. (1986); Drug Interdiction and Military Readiness: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. (1985). other vessels Congress had in mind when it employed the term vessel without nationality.6 This concept, however, has a reasonably well developed meaning under international law. Where Congress uses terms that have accumulated settled meaning under either equity or the common law, a court must infer, unless the statute otherwise dictates, that Congress means to incorporate the established meanings of these terms. NLRB v. Amax Coal Co., 453 U.S. 322, 329 (1981). See also Community of Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 739 (1989). This same principle logically applies when Congress uses a term that has acquired a settled meaning under customary international law. We therefore think that it is reasonable to assume that the residual category of vessels without nationality under 46 U.S.C. App. § 1903(c)--i.e., those not within subsections (c)(2)(A) or (B)-- are those that would be regarded as without 6 . Nor have we found guidance in the text or legislative history of a predecessor provision, 21 U.S.C. § 955b(d) (repealed 1986). This provision stated without elaboration: Vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States includes a vessel without nationality or a vessel assimilated to a vessel without nationality, in accordance with paragraph (2) of article 6 of the Convention of the High Seas, 1958. See also S. Rep. No. 855, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. (1980), reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2785; H.R. Rep. No. 323, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. (1980); A Bill to Facilitate Increased Enforcement by the Coast Guard of Laws Relating to the Importation of Controlled Substances: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 96th Cong., 1st Sess (1979); 125 Cong. Rec. 20082. nationality or stateless under international law.7 We therefore turn to the meaning of a vessel that is without nationality or stateless under international law.