Court Opinion

ID: 9402544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-16 00:00:59.693458+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:00.165581
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40393         Document: 00516789185             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/15/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                      ____________                                     FILED
                                                                                   June 15, 2023
                                       No. 22-40393                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                     Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Christian Leonardo Franco Posligua,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Eastern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:21-CR-132-3
                      ______________________________

   Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Dennis and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Christian Leonardo Franco Posligua pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
   possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance on board a vessel
   subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of the Maritime
   Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA). Under the MDLEA, the district
   court was required to make a preliminary determination as to its jurisdiction

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40393         Document: 00516789185               Page: 2      Date Filed: 06/15/2023

                                          No. 22-40393

   over the vessel at issue but did not do so. 1 Posligua now challenges the
   district court’s jurisdiction and also seeks to vacate an order of forfeiture
   entered by the district court. We order a limited remand for the district court
   to consider, in the first instance, whether it has jurisdiction. We also order
   the district court to vacate the forfeiture order.
                                                 I
           Four years before the events that led to the present appeal, Posligua,
   a fisherman from Ecuador, was found on a vessel that was transporting
   cocaine. He pled guilty in the District Court for the Southern District of New
   York to participating in a conspiracy to violate the MDLEA. He was
   sentenced to time served, which was 14 months, and removed from the
   United States.
           Four years later, in 2021, Posligua and three other men were found in
   a low-profile vessel in the Pacific Ocean that had no indicia of nationality or
   state documents. The United States Coast Guard officers who searched the
   vessel seized 1100 kilograms of cocaine, after they observed men throwing a
   package overboard. Two of the men aboard the vessel identified Posligua as
   its captain.
           A grand jury charged Posligua with conspiracy to possess with intent
   to distribute a controlled substance on board a vessel subject to the
   jurisdiction of the United States in violation of 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a)(1) and

           _____________________
           1
             See United States v. Bustos-Useche, 273 F.3d 622, 626 (5th Cir. 2001) (“[46 U.S.C.
   § 70504(a)] states that ‘[j]urisdiction of the United States with respect to vessels subject
   to this chapter is not an element of any offense. All jurisdictional issues arising under this
   chapter are preliminary questions of law to be determined by the trial judge.’ Based on this
   addition to the statute, we conclude that the district court’s preliminary determination of
   whether a flag nation has consented or waived objection to the enforcement of United
   States law is a prerequisite to the court’s jurisdiction under [the MDLEA].”).

                                                 2
Case: 22-40393          Document: 00516789185               Page: 3    Date Filed: 06/15/2023

                                             No. 22-40393

   70506(b). 2 The indictment was premised on § 70502(c)(1)(A), alleging that
   the vessel Posligua was found aboard was “without nationality,” thereby
   being “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” 3 Although under
   § 70504(a) the question of whether a vessel is subject to the jurisdiction of
   the United States is a question of law to be decided by the district court, 4
   neither Posligua nor the Government asked the district court to decide the
   issue. The district court ultimately did not make a determination as to its
   jurisdiction before accepting Posligua’s plea agreement.
           As part of that agreement, Posligua signed a factual basis admitting he
   “made an agreement to commit the crime charged in the [i]ndictment.” The
   factual basis did not, however, mention the vessel from which the cocaine
   was seized. Posligua also agreed to waive his right to appeal except in limited
   circumstances.           Posligua’s presentence report provides additional
   information. It notes that Posligua was interdicted by the U.S. Coast Guard
   “in the Eastern Pacific Ocean;” that the “vessel had no physical indicia of
   nationality and no state documents on board;” that “[n]one of the
   codefendants claimed to be captain of the vessel;” that “Posligua advised the
   vessel was of Colombian nationality;” that “Officers were advised Colombia
   could neither confirm nor deny the vessel’s nationality;” and that
   “[Posligua] was the apparent captain of the boat.” Neither Posligua nor the
   Government objected to the presentence report. At the sentencing hearing,
   Posligua stated that he reviewed the presentence report, understood it, and

           _____________________
           2
               46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a)(1), 70506(b).
           3
               46 U.S.C. § 70502(c)(1)(A).
           4
             46 U.S.C. § 70504(a) (“Jurisdiction of the United States with respect to a vessel
   subject to this chapter is not an element of an offense. Jurisdictional issues arising under
   this chapter are preliminary questions of law to be determined solely by the trial judge.”).

                                                  3
Case: 22-40393         Document: 00516789185           Page: 4   Date Filed: 06/15/2023

                                        No. 22-40393

   believed it adequately covered his background. The district court then
   adopted the facts and accepted the plea agreement.
          After the sentencing hearing, the Government filed a motion for the
   district court to issue a final order of forfeiture against Posligua for $100,000,
   pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b) and (c). 5 The district
   court subsequently granted the motion and entered a final order of forfeiture
   against Posligua.
          Posligua now appeals, arguing that the district court lacked subject
   matter jurisdiction, or alternatively, that his plea was not knowing and
   voluntary. He also asserts that the forfeiture order accompanying the final
   judgment was illegal.
                                               II
          Without making the required jurisdictional determination, the district
   court entered a plea agreement. We order a limited remand to permit the
   district court to determine, in the first instance, whether it has jurisdiction.
                                               III
          After the present appeal was filed, Posligua filed a separate appeal
   challenging the district court’s order of forfeiture accompanying the final
   judgment.       That appeal was dismissed because the present appeal,
   challenging the district court’s final judgment, was already pending. The
   motion to vacate the forfeiture order is carried with this appeal.
          Both Posligua and the Government argue that the forfeiture order
   entered by the district court against Posligua should be vacated because it was
   not statutorily authorized. Although Posligua did not object to the forfeiture

          _____________________
          5
              Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b), (c).

                                               4
Case: 22-40393          Document: 00516789185            Page: 5       Date Filed: 06/15/2023

                                         No. 22-40393

   order at sentencing, “we review [his claim] de novo because he claims that
   this element of his sentence is illegal.” 6
           In the interest of judicial economy, we address the forfeiture issue
   now. Because Posligua’s appeal waiver “reserves the right to appeal any
   punishment imposed in excess of the statutory maximum,” his appeal waiver
   does not foreclose this court from granting relief from an unauthorized
   forfeiture. 7
           Under 46 U.S.C. § 70507(a), forfeiture of property is proper if it “is
   used or intended for use to commit, or to facilitate the commission of,” an
   MDLEA offense. 8           Here, as the Government recognizes, “the record
   contains no allegation or evidence that Posligua or his coconspirators used or
   intended to use the $100,000 cash to commit or facilitate the charged
   MDLEA offense.” Under 28 U.S.C. § 2106, this “court has the discretion
   to either reform a judgment or remand the case for the district court to do
   so.” 9 Accordingly, because there is no evidence or allegation that Posligua
   used or intended to use the $100,000 cash to commit or facilitate his charged

           _____________________
           6
            United States v. Nagin, 810 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2016) (citing United States v.
   Nolen, 472 F.3d 362, 382 & n. 52 (5th Cir. 2006)).
           7
             United States v. Gasanova, 332 F.3d 297, 300 (5th Cir. 2003) (explaining that
   “[f]orfeiture is a form of punishment” (citing Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 618
   (1993))).
           8
               46 U.S.C. § 70507(a).
           9
             United States v. Fuentes-Rodriguez, 22 F.4th 504, 506 (5th Cir. 2022) (per curiam)
   (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2106).

                                                5
Case: 22-40393      Document: 00516789185           Page: 6   Date Filed: 06/15/2023

                                     No. 22-40393

   offense, we remand the case to the district court with instructions to vacate
   the forfeiture order.
                                 *        *         *
          For the foregoing reasons we order a limited REMAND for further
   proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                                          6