Opinion ID: 581360
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: 17 Appellants argue that the government failed to present sufficient evidence that the Delfin was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as required by 46 U.S.C.App. § 1903(a). At trial, the government presented a certification of the Secretary of State stating that the Colombian government had denied registry of the Delfin. Appellants claim that the certification contained insufficient information to establish jurisdiction beyond a reasonable doubt. 18 46 U.S.C.App. § 1903(c)(1)(A) defines a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as including a vessel without nationality. Section 1903(c)(2)(A) defines a vessel without nationality as one in which the master or person in charge makes a claim of registry, which claim is denied by the flag nation whose registry is claimed. The captain of the Delfin claimed that the vessel was registered in Colombia. The Colombian government denied this claim and the United States Attorney proved the denial by presenting a certification of the Secretary of State as provided by § 1903(c)(2). The certification stated that on October 13, 1990, Chief Warrant Officer Green, duty officer at the U.S. Embassy in Bogota, contacted General Rodriguez, who represented the Government of Colombia with authority to verify registry of vessels claiming Colombian registration and stated that the Delfin was not registered under the laws of Colombia. Although we agree with the district court that it would have been better if the certification had contained more specific information, we find that the certification contained sufficient information to prove jurisdiction beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, the certification, bearing a Department of State seal and the signature of a Department of State official authorized to authenticate such documents, was a self-authenticating document pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 902(1). Accordingly, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the certification. 19 We have considered all of appellants' arguments and find them to be without merit. The judgments of conviction are affirmed.