Court Opinion

ID: 9405171
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-27 18:01:13.070273+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:20.058532
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10665    Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 06/27/2023   Page: 1 of 12

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]

                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-10665
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        LEONEL GARCIA CABEZA,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-20383-KMM-3
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10665   Document: 40-1     Date Filed: 06/27/2023   Page: 2 of 12

        2                   Opinion of the Court                22-10665

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10691
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        ENER CORTES RODRIGUEZ,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-20383-KMM-2
                          ____________________

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10703
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10665     Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 06/27/2023    Page: 3 of 12

        22-10665              Opinion of the Court                        3

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                         Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        PABLO GUERRERO MARQUEZ,

                                                     Defendant- Appellant.

                            ____________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-20383-KMM-1
                            ____________________

        Before LAGOA, BRASHER and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               In this consolidated appeal, codefendants Leonel Garcia
        Cabeza, Ener Cortes Rodriguez, and Pablo Guerrero Marquez
        each appeal their convictions after pleading guilty to conspiracy to
        possess with intent to distribute cocaine on board a vessel subject
        to the jurisdiction of the United States. They also appeal their re-
        spective 135-month imprisonment sentences, arguing they are sub-
        stantively unreasonable. On appeal, the codefendants argue that
        the government failed to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement un-
        der the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (“MDLEA”) of
USCA11 Case: 22-10665      Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 06/27/2023      Page: 4 of 12

        4                      Opinion of the Court                  22-10665

        establishing that their vessel was without nationality because the
        facts proffered in support of their guilty pleas did not establish that
        the Coast Guard asked for the master or person in charge to make
        a claim of nationality or that they were silent in response to such a
        request. Further, they each argue that their sentences were sub-
        stantively unreasonable because they did not account for their re-
        spective history and characteristics, their role in the offense, or the
        need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities. After reviewing
        the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we affirm the defendants’
        convictions and sentences.
                                          I.
               We review whether the district court had jurisdiction de
        novo, even when a party raises the jurisdictional question for the
        ﬁrst time on appeal, and review factual ﬁndings related to jurisdic-
        tion for clear error. United States v. Iguaran, 821 F.3d 1335, 1336
        (11th Cir. 2016).
                Under the MDLEA, the question of whether a vessel is sub-
        ject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a jurisdictional ques-
        tion, and not an element of the oﬀense. Id. Jurisdictional issues
        under the MDLEA “are preliminary questions of law to be deter-
        mined solely by the trial judge.” 46 U.S.C. § 70504(a). “Further-
        more, for a district court to have adjudicatory authority over a
        charge that a defendant conspired to violate the substantive crime
        deﬁned in subsection (a), the Government must preliminarily show
        that the conspiracy’s vessel was, when apprehended, subject to the
        jurisdiction of the United States.” United States v. De La Garza, 516
USCA11 Case: 22-10665      Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 06/27/2023     Page: 5 of 12

        22-10665               Opinion of the Court                         5

        F.3d 1266, 1272 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks omitted). We
        have treated the jurisdictional requirement under the MDLEA as
        “akin to the amount-in-controversy requirement contained in 28
        U.S.C. § 1332.” Id. at 1271. Parties may stipulate to facts that sup-
        port a jurisdictional ﬁnding but may not stipulate to jurisdiction.
        Iguaran, 821 F.3d at 1337. “[F]ailure to object to allegations of fact
        in a [presentence investigation report (“PSI”)] admits those facts for
        sentencing purposes.” United States v. Wade, 458 F.3d 1273, 1277
        (11th Cir. 2006).
               The MDLEA makes it a crime to conspire to distribute a con-
        trolled substance while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction
        of the United States. 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a)(1), 70506(b). The
        MDLEA’s deﬁnition of a “vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the
        United States” includes a “vessel without nationality.” Id.
        § 70502(c)(1)(A). Under the MDLEA,
              the term “vessel without nationality” includes—
              (A) a vessel aboard which the master or individual in
              charge makes a claim of registry that is denied by the
              nation whose registry is claimed;
              (B) a vessel aboard which the master or individual in
              charge fails, on request of an oﬃcer of the United
              States authorized to enforce applicable provisions of
              United States law, to make a claim of nationality or
              registry for that vessel;
              (C) a vessel aboard which the master or individual in
              charge makes a claim of registry and for which the
              claimed nation of registry does not aﬃrmatively and
USCA11 Case: 22-10665       Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 06/27/2023      Page: 6 of 12

        6                       Opinion of the Court                  22-10665

               unequivocally assert that the vessel is of its national-
               ity; and
               (D) a vessel aboard which no individual, on request of
               an oﬃcer of the United States authorized to enforce
               applicable provisions of United States law, claims to
               be the master or is identiﬁed as the individual in
               charge, and that has no other claim of nationality or
               registry under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (e).
        Id. § 70502(d)(1). With regard to a claim of nationality or registry,
        the MDLEA further provides that:
               A claim of nationality or registry under this section
               includes only—
               (1) possession on board the vessel and production of
               documents evidencing the vessel’s nationality as pro-
               vided in article 5 of the 1958 Convention on the High
               Seas;
               (2) ﬂying its nation’s ensign or ﬂag; or
               (3) a verbal claim of nationality or registry by the
               master or individual in charge of the vessel.
        Id. § 70502(e).
               We have held that § 70502(d)(1) is not an exhaustive list of
        every circumstance in which a vessel lacks nationality. United States
        v. Nunez, 1 F.4th 976, 984 (11th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___,
        142 S. Ct. 2675 (2022). To determine whether a vessel is without
        nationality, we look to customary international law. Id. In Nunez,
        we noted that a vessel usually makes its nationality known by ﬂying
        a nation’s ﬂag or carrying registration papers. Id. at 985. When a
USCA11 Case: 22-10665      Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 06/27/2023     Page: 7 of 12

        22-10665               Opinion of the Court                         7

        vessel does not have those common signs of nationality, we look to
        § 70502(e) and international law. Id.
               In determining whether a vessel is stateless, we have held
        that a vessel was subject to the United States’s jurisdiction under
        § 70502(d)(1)(B) where it “ﬂew no ﬂag, carried no registration pa-
        perwork, and bore no markings indicating its nationality”; despite
        repeated questioning, the captain concealed himself among the
        crew and failed to identify himself or the vessel’s nationality; and
        the crew, when questioned, “made no claims about the boat’s na-
        tionality or registry.” United States v. De La Cruz, 443 F.3d 830, 832
        (11th Cir. 2006). Similarly, in De La Garza, we held that the vessel
        was stateless because the defendant stipulated that the vessel was
        not ﬂying any ﬂag and had no indicia of nationality and indicated
        at his plea hearing that he understood that the United States
        claimed jurisdiction over the vessel and wished to plead guilty. 516
        F.3d at 1272.
               Likewise, in United States v. Cabezas-Montano, we held that a
        vessel was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States where the
        Coast Guard members testiﬁed that they asked the crew to identify
        the master of the vessel and no one identiﬁed himself as the master
        and when asked individually if anyone wished to make a claim of
        nationality for the vessel, no one responded. 949 F.3d 567, 589-90
        (11th Cir. 2020). We noted that the questions were suﬃcient, even
        though the Coast Guard failed to ask for the “individual in charge,”
        because that individual still had an opportunity to make a claim of
USCA11 Case: 22-10665      Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 06/27/2023     Page: 8 of 12

        8                      Opinion of the Court                 22-10665

        nationality for the vessel when the Coast Guard asked if anyone
        wished to do so. Id. at 589 n.14.
                In Iguaran, the plea agreement, factual proﬀer, and PSI all
        contained the same stipulation that Iguaran was “on board a vessel
        that was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” 821 F.3d
        at 1337 (quotation marks omitted). We stated that the stipulation
        was not suﬃcient to establish jurisdiction because parties may not
        stipulate to jurisdiction, which is a question of law. Id. We stated
        that Iguaran’s plea agreement did not otherwise contain facts that
        would support a ﬁnding that the vessel was stateless. Id. We deter-
        mined that “Iguaran’s factual proﬀer, his presentence investigation
        report, and the transcript from his change of plea hearing also
        failed to supply facts which established that Iguaran’s vessel was
        subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” Id. Even though
        Iguaran’s co-conspirator admitted to facts that would support a
        ﬁnding that the vessel was stateless, we held that the record in the
        co-conspirator’s case was irrelevant to whether Iguaran’s record
        suﬃciently established the United States’ jurisdiction over the ves-
        sel. Id. at 1337-38. When the record is not fully developed, at least
        in part because of the defendant’s failure to raise the issue below,
        we will remand the case to the district court for further factual ﬁnd-
        ings. Id. at 1338. Accordingly, we remanded the case to allow the
        government to provide evidence that Iguaran’s vessel was subject
        to the jurisdiction of the United States. Id.
             In Nunez, the Coast Guard approached a vessel with four
        men on board and asked who was the pilot or master of the vessel.
USCA11 Case: 22-10665      Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 06/27/2023     Page: 9 of 12

        22-10665               Opinion of the Court                         9

        1 F.4th at 981. One crew member responded that they all took
        turns performing the duties of the pilot or master. Id. We noted
        that because no one claimed to be the master of the vessel, the
        Coast Guard was not required to inquire as to the nationality of the
        vessel. Id. at 986. We held that the vessel was stateless because
        there were no registry papers on board, there were no markings to
        indicate the nationality of the vessel, and no one, master or crew-
        member, made a verbal claim of the vessel’s nationality. Id. We
        noted that under international law, there are no set standards for
        what questions authorities must ask to determine whether a vessel
        is stateless. Id. at 987. We also noted that typically there is some
        form of examination by authorities to determine a vessel’s nation-
        ality, but that international treatises do not address how to treat a
        vessel without a master and no nationality markings. Id.
               The record in the present case demonstrates that Garcia
        Cabeza, Cortes Rodriguez, and Guerrero Marquez admitted in
        their respective factual proﬀers and PSIs that the vessel had no in-
        dicia of nationality and none of the men on board claimed to be
        the master or captain of the vessel, which relieved the Coast Guard
        of having to conﬁrm the nationality of the vessel. See Nunez, 1 F.4th
        at 986. Under our precedent, those facts were suﬃcient to establish
        that the vessel was stateless for purposes of subject matter jurisdic-
        tion. Accordingly, because we conclude that the district court had
        jurisdiction over the defendants, we aﬃrm their convictions.
USCA11 Case: 22-10665      Document: 40-1       Date Filed: 06/27/2023    Page: 10 of 12

        10                     Opinion of the Court                  22-10665

                                          II.
                When reviewing a sentence for substantive reasonableness,
        we consider the totality of the circumstances under a deferential
        abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51,
        128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). A district court abuses its discretion
        when it (1) fails to consider relevant factors that were due signiﬁ-
        cant weight, (2) gives signiﬁcant weight to an improper or irrele-
        vant factor, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment by balancing
        the proper factors unreasonably. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160,
        1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc). We will vacate a sentence “if, but
        only if, we are left with the deﬁnite and ﬁrm conviction that the
        district court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the
        § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range
        of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” Irey, 612
        F.3d at 1190 (quotation marks omitted). The district court commits
        a clear error of judgment when it considers the proper factors but
        weighs them unreasonably. Id. at 1189.
                We have emphasized that we must give due deference to the
        weight the district court assigns to the sentencing factors. United
        States v. Shabazz, 887 F.3d 1204, 1224 (11th Cir. 2018). The district
        court need not account for every § 3553(a) factor, nor must it dis-
        cuss each factor and the role that that factor played in sentencing.
        United States v. McBride, 511 F.3d 1293, 1297 (11th Cir. 2007). The
        district court also does not have to give all the factors equal weight,
        and we give discretion to the district court’s attachment of great
USCA11 Case: 22-10665      Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 06/27/2023     Page: 11 of 12

        22-10665               Opinion of the Court                         11

        weight to one factor over another. United States v. Rosales-Bruno,
        789 F.3d 1249, 1254 (11th Cir. 2015).
               Along with the § 3553(a) factors, the district court should
        also consider the particularized facts of the case and the guideline
        range. Id. at 1259-60. However, it maintains discretion to give
        heavier weight to any of the § 3553(a) factors or combination of
        factors than to the guideline range. Id. at 1259. The “district court
        may determine, on a case-by-case basis, the weight to give the
        Guidelines, so long as that determination is made with reference to
        the remaining § 3553(a) factors that the court must also consider.”
        United States v. Hunt, 459 F.3d 1180, 1185 (11th Cir. 2006). Indicators
        of a reasonable sentence are the district court’s imposition of a sen-
        tence within the guideline range, and its imposition of a sentence
        well below the statutory maximum penalty. United States v. Croteau,
        819 F.3d 1293, 1309-10 (11th Cir. 2016).
               One of the purposes of the Guidelines is providing certainty
        and fairness in sentencing, and “avoiding unwarranted sentencing
        disparities among defendants with similar records who have been
        found guilty of similar criminal conduct.” United States v. Docampo,
        573 F.3d 1091, 1102 (11th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks omitted). Alt-
        hough we have never stated what the defendant’s burden is in these
        contexts, we have noted that the district court is required to avoid
        the unwarranted disparities between similarly situated defendants,
        indicating that the court should be aware of any potential for this
        issue at sentencing. See id. at 1101-02. As the Sentencing Commis-
        sion considered the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing
USCA11 Case: 22-10665     Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 06/27/2023    Page: 12 of 12

        12                     Opinion of the Court                22-10665

        disparities when crafting the Guidelines, the district court neces-
        sarily gives signiﬁcant weight and consideration to this factor by
        correctly calculating and considering the guideline range. United
        States v. Hill, 643 F.3d 807, 884-85 (11th Cir. 2011).
                The record here demonstrates that the district court did not
        err in its imposition of the defendants’ sentences. Garcia Cabeza’s
        sentence is reasonable because the district court did not commit a
        clear error in judgment in determining that a sentence at the low-
        end of the guideline range was warranted after weighing the large
        quantity of cocaine possessed, Garcia Cabeza’s poor upbringing,
        his position in the drug enterprise, and the need to avoid unwar-
        ranted sentencing disparities. Cortes Rodriguez’s sentence is also
        reasonable because the district court was within its discretion in
        determining that his poor upbringing did not justify a variance, that
        the guideline range adequately accounted for the quantity of co-
        caine on the vessel, and that a guideline sentence would avoid un-
        warranted sentencing disparities. Finally, Guerrero Marquez’s sen-
        tence is reasonable because the district court properly exercised its
        discretion in determining that the amount of cocaine on the vessel
        outweighed his personal history and that the guideline range ade-
        quately reﬂected the seriousness of the oﬀense. Accordingly, based
        on the aforementioned reasons, we aﬃrm the defendants’ convic-
        tions and sentences.
              AFFIRMED.