Court Opinion

ID: 9392140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-04 15:00:56.296798+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:28.423223
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12182    Document: 25-1     Date Filed: 05/04/2023   Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12182
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       RICARDO DAVID SALAZAR-MARCANO,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 4:21-cr-10019-JEM-3
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12182     Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 05/04/2023    Page: 2 of 6

       2                      Opinion of the Court                22-12182

       Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Ricardo David Salazar-Marcano pleaded guilty, pursuant to
       a written plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy with intent
       to distribute cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the
       jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of the Maritime Drug
       Law Enforcement Act (“MDLEA”), 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503(a)(1),
       70506(b). He now appeals, arguing that venue was not proper in
       the Southern District of Florida and that the district court erred in
       denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. After review, we
       affirm.
                                 I.     Background
              The United States Coast Guard apprehended Salazar-
       Marcano, along with two other individuals, on a go-fast vessel
       carrying cocaine in international waters. Upon being detained,
       Salazar-Marcano was placed on a coast guard cutter which
       proceeded into the inner harbor of San Juan, Puerto Rico. He was
       then transferred (without going ashore) to another vessel and
       eventually arrived at a port in the Southern District of Florida.
       Thereafter, Salazar-Marcano was indicted in the Southern District
       of Florida on two counts: (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to
       distribute a controlled substance while on board a vessel subject to
       the jurisdiction of the United States; and (2) possession with intent
USCA11 Case: 22-12182         Document: 25-1          Date Filed: 05/04/2023          Page: 3 of 6

       22-12182                    Opinion of the Court                                 3

       to distribute a controlled substance while on board a vessel subject
       to the jurisdiction of the United States.
              Salazar-Marcano moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing
       that venue was inappropriate in the Southern District of Florida.
       He maintained that, under 21 U.S.C. § 955a(f), 1 venue was
       appropriate in the first port of entry in the United States that he
       entered following his detention, which was San Juan, Puerto Rico.
       The district court denied the motion to dismiss, concluding that
       venue was proper in the Southern District of Florida, under
       § 70504(b)(2) of the MDLEA.2

       1 Section 955a is a statute in an older version of what is now known as the
       MDLEA. As relevant to this appeal, it provided that “it is unlawful for any
       person on board a vessel of the United States, or on board a vessel subject to
       the jurisdiction of the United States on the high seas, to knowingly or
       intentionally manufacture or distribute, or to possess with intent to
       manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance.” 21 U.S.C. § 955a(a) (1980).
       Subsection (f) further provided that “[a]ny person who violates this section
       shall be tried in the United States district court at the point of entry where that
       person enters the United States, or in the United States District Court for the
       District of Columbia.” Id. § 955a(f). In 1986, Congress struck virtually the
       entire existing act, and then reenacted an expanded version entitled “the
       Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act,” which was recodified in Title 46. See
       United States v. Ahumedo-Avendano, 872 F.2d 367, 372 n.5 (11th Cir. 1989)
       (citing The Coast Guard Authorization Act, Pub. L. No. 99-640, § 17, 100 Stat.
       3552 (1986)).
       2 The MDLEA provides that a person violating 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503 or 70508
       “may be tried in any district” “if the offense was begun or committed upon the
       high seas.” 46 U.S.C. § 70504(b)(2).
USCA11 Case: 22-12182         Document: 25-1           Date Filed: 05/04/2023   Page: 4 of 6

       4                          Opinion of the Court                    22-12182

              Thereafter, Salazar-Marcano pleaded guilty, pursuant to a
       written plea agreement, to Count 1 of the indictment. The plea
       agreement did not contain an appeal waiver, nor did it reserve his
       right to appeal the venue ruling. The district court sentenced
       Salazar-Marcano to 84 months’ imprisonment, followed by two
       years’ supervised release. Additionally, at the sentencing hearing,
       Salazar-Marcano’s previously filed motion to dismiss based on
       improper venue was discussed, and at the end of the sentencing
       hearing, his counsel noted that he “preserve[d] all motions and
       issues.” The district court agreed, stating that “[a]ll of them, all
       motions filed by all of the defendants shall be preserved.” The
       government did not object. Salazar-Marcano timely appealed.
                                      II.      Discussion
              Salazar-Marcano argues that, under 21 U.S.C. § 955a(f), San
       Juan was the proper venue for his case because it was his first point
       of entry into the United States and that the district court erred in
       denying his motion to dismiss the indictment. In response, the
       government argues that (1) Salazar-Marcano waived this argument
       by entering an unconditional guilty plea, and (2) the argument is
       meritless due to the plain, controlling language of 46 U.S.C.
       § 70504(b). 3
              “A voluntary, unconditional guilty plea waives all non-
       jurisdictional defects in the proceedings.” United States v. Patti,

       3 Salazar-Marcano did not file a reply brief.
USCA11 Case: 22-12182        Document: 25-1       Date Filed: 05/04/2023        Page: 5 of 6

       22-12182                  Opinion of the Court                             5

       337 F.3d 1317, 1320 (11th Cir. 2003). Generally, a defendant who
       elects to plead guilty and who wishes to preserve a non-
       jurisdictional claim for appeal must enter a conditional guilty plea
       in writing, with the consent of the district court and the
       government. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2). Venue is non-jurisdictional
       and can be waived. See Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding
       Corp., 308 U.S. 165, 167–68 (1939); Baeza v. United States, 543 F.2d
       572, 573 (5th Cir. 1976) (“Venue is a mere personal and technical
       right which may be waived.”). 4
              Here, it is undisputed that Salazar-Marcano’s plea
       agreement did not preserve his right to appeal the denial of his
       motion to dismiss based on improper venue, and he did not request
       to reserve that right during the plea colloquy. Although he
       expressed his desire at sentencing to preserve all motions for appeal
       and the government did not object, that statement did not convert
       his unconditional guilty plea into a conditional guilty plea. See
       United States v. Betancourth, 554 F.3d 1329, 1331–32 (11th Cir.
       2009) (holding that, although the defendant’s attorney stated the
       defendant’s desire to preserve an issue for appeal, “that did not
       convert [the defendant’s] guilty plea into a conditional plea”
       because “[a] conditional plea must be in writing and must be

       4 We are bound by decisions of the former Fifth Circuit issued prior to the
       close of business on September 20, 1981. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d
       1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981).
USCA11 Case: 22-12182     Document: 25-1      Date Filed: 05/04/2023    Page: 6 of 6

       6                      Opinion of the Court                22-12182

       consented to by the court and by the government” (quotations
       omitted)). Thus, Salazar-Marcano’s venue challenge is waived.
              Nevertheless, even assuming, arguendo, that the issue is not
       waived, it fails on the merits. Under the current version of the
       MDLEA, which applies here, “if the offense was begun or
       committed upon the high seas, or elsewhere outside the
       jurisdiction of any particular State or district, [the defendant] may
       be tried in any district.” 46 U.S.C. § 70504(b)(2). Accordingly,
       venue was appropriate in the Southern District of Florida.
             AFFIRMED.