Opinion ID: 200216
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statelessness Analysis

Text: 41 Since I believe the statelessness of the vessel is a jurisdictional determination, I review González's challenge de novo. Seahorse Marine Supplies, Inc. v. Puerto Rico Sun Oil Co., 295 F.3d 68, 73 (1st Cir.2002). Reviewing this issue on appeal is not complicated, as the record contains all facts relevant to whether or not the vessel was stateless. 42 González is neither a citizen nor a resident alien of the United States, and the vessel involved was not a vessel of the United States. Thus, for González to be prosecuted under the MDLEA, the vessel must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 46 U.S.C. app. § 1903(a). On our facts, his vessel could only be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States if it is a vessel without nationality, also known as a stateless vessel. 46 U.S.C. app. § 1903(c). According to the MDLEA, 43 a vessel without nationality includes: 44 (A) a vessel aboard which the master or person in charge makes a claim of registry, 8 which claim is denied by the flag nation whose registry is claimed; 45 (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; and 46 (C) a vessel aboard which the master or person in charge makes a claim of registry and the claimed nation of registry does not affirmatively and unequivocally assert that the vessel is of its nationality. 47 46 U.S.C. app. § 1903(c)(2). González argues that the requirement of statelessness can only be satisfied in one of two ways, neither of which was satisfied in this case: when the master makes a claim of registry which is denied (or not assented to) by the flag nation, or when the master fails, upon request, to make a claim of registry. González asserts that the vessel cannot be deemed stateless because the master did not make a claim of registry or fail to make a claim of registry. 48 González's argument must fail. The statute does not provide an exhaustive list of the ways that a vessel can be determined to be stateless, but uses the word includes, and lists three examples. An expansive reading furthers the Congressional intent of reaching the widest range of drug smuggling cases possible under international law. If Congress had intended to provide an exclusive list, it could have used the phrase only includes, as it did in the following subsection. 46 U.S.C. app. § 1903(c)(3); see also United States v. Rosero, 42 F.3d 166, 170 (3d Cir.1994); United States v. Valdez, 84 F.Supp.2d 237, 238 (D.P.R.1999). 49 Although I have not found any cases with facts similar to the present case, that is, where no one was aboard the vessel when it was approached, I do not think it is a stretch to say that an unoccupied vessel completely lacking in evidence of registry or nationality is a stateless vessel. See L. Oppenheim, 1 International Law, 595-96 (H. Lauterpacht 8th ed.1955) (noting that a stateless vessel is one sailing under the flags of two or more states, or under no flag at all). The United States is a party to the Convention on the High Seas, a codification of the customary laws of the high seas, which requires all ships to sail under a nation's flag. Convention on the High Seas, Apr. 29, 1958, art. 6, 13 U.S.T. 2312, 450 U.N.T.S. 82 (Ships shall sail under the flag of one State only.... (emphasis added)). 9 González has not claimed that the vessel is authorized to fly under the flag of any nation. More importantly, at the time it was boarded by the Coast Guard, the vessel was not flying any flag. 50 González argues that the Coast Guard, knowing he was being treated in the British Virgin Islands, should have attempted to question him or Polanco about the vessel's nationality and/or registry. González insists that a vessel can only be deemed stateless following such an inquiry. I disagree. The MDLEA's examples of when a vessel is without nationality all presume the presence of a master or person in charge. See 46 U.S.C. app. § 1903(c)(2). Appellant, who had indisputably occupied a drug-ridden boat that had no master or evidence of registry, should not have immunity from seizure and federal prosecution simply because he was rescued before the Coast Guard arrived. Cf. United States v. Rosero, 42 F.3d 166, 174 (3d Cir.1994) (Under [46 U.S.C. app. § 1903(c)(2)(B)], if the master or person in charge fails, upon request, to make any claim of nationality or registry, the vessel may be regarded as stateless. By clear implication, we believe, this provision applies when the master of a ship flees and leaves no one in charge....). An unoccupied boat, completely lacking in identifying markers, is a stateless vessel. As such, the district court properly asserted its jurisdiction in this case.