Court Opinion

ID: 9966182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 14:01:02.239294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:41.537321
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-13675    Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 05/06/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-13675
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       CRISTIAN ORLANDO CASTILLO-QUINONES,
       a.k.a. Pantaloneta

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cr-00053-CEH-AAS-1
USCA11 Case: 23-13675      Document: 27-1       Date Filed: 05/06/2024     Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  23-13675

                            ____________________

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JORDAN and LAGOA, Cir-
       cuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Cristian Castillo-Quinones appeals his conviction for con-
       spiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilo-
       grams or more of cocaine while aboard a vessel subject to the ju-
       risdiction of the United States. He argues that his prosecution un-
       der the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act violated the Due
       Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and exceeded Congress’s
       authority under the Felonies Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause
       10 of the U.S. Constitution because his offense bore no nexus to the
       United States. The government moves for summary affirmance be-
       cause our precedents foreclose Castillo-Quinones’s arguments. We
       affirm.
              Summary disposition is appropriate where “the position of
       one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can
       be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case, or where,
       as is more frequently the case, the appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke
       Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).
              Article I of the Constitution empowers Congress “[t]o define
       and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and
       Offences against the Law of Nations.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 10.
       It provides three distinct grants of power: “the power to define and
       punish piracies”; “the power to define and punish felonies
USCA11 Case: 23-13675      Document: 27-1     Date Filed: 05/06/2024     Page: 3 of 3

       23-13675               Opinion of the Court                         3

       committed on the high seas”; and “the power to define and punish
       offenses against the law of nations.” United States v. Bellaizac-Hur-
       tado, 700 F.3d 1245, 1248 (11th Cir. 2012). These grants are referred
       to as the Piracies Clause, the Felonies Clause, and the Offences
       Clause, respectively. See id. at 1248–49.
              The government is clearly correct as a matter of law. Con-
       gress enacted the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act to prohibit
       knowing and intentional possession with intent to distribute con-
       trolled substances onboard vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the
       United States. 46 U.S.C. § 70503(a)(1); see United States v. Campbell,
       743 F.3d 802, 805 (11th Cir. 2014). In Campbell, we held that the Act
       is a constitutional exercise of congressional authority as applied to
       vessels on the high seas under the Felonies Clause. 743 F.3d at 809–
       10. And we held that “the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amend-
       ment does not prohibit the trial and conviction of an alien captured
       on the high seas while drug trafficking, because the Act provides
       clear notice that all nations prohibit and condemn drug trafficking
       aboard stateless vessels on the high seas.” Id. at 812. Castillo-Qui-
       nones concedes in his initial brief that his arguments to the contrary
       are foreclosed by our precedents.
            We GRANT the government’s motion for summary affir-
       mance.
             AFFIRMED.