Court Opinion

ID: 9947589
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-05 15:00:55.866656+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:35.733500
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-12945    Document: 56-1     Date Filed: 03/05/2024   Page: 1 of 5

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 21-12945
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       HENRY JOSE MARQUEZ,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cr-00488-CEH-JSS-6
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-12945      Document: 56-1     Date Filed: 03/05/2024     Page: 2 of 5

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 21-12945

       Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Henry Marquez appeals his conviction and sentence for one
       count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine aboard a
       vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and one count
       of conspiracy to commit the same. We affirm.
                                         I.
              This Court recently decided the appeal filed by several of
       Marquez’s codefendants. See United States v. Hurtado, 89 F.4th 881
       (11th Cir. 2023). We assume that the parties are familiar with those
       underlying facts. Marquez adopted his codefendant’s motion to
       dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction and motion to
       suppress evidence for violation of the Fourth Amendment. After
       the magistrate judge recommended denying both motions,
       Marquez also adopted his codefendants’ objections to the Report
       and Recommendation. The district court accepted the R&R,
       overruled the objections, and denied the two motions.
              Marquez then entered into a guilty plea without a plea
       agreement, pleading to one count of conspiring to distribute and
       possess with the intent to distribute five kilograms or more of
       cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the
       United States, and to one count of aiding and abetting the same. A
       probation officer prepared the presentence investigation report,
       describing Marquez’s role as chief engineer aboard the vessel and
       calculating the offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines. The
USCA11 Case: 21-12945     Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 03/05/2024    Page: 3 of 5

       21-12945               Opinion of the Court                        3

       officer calculated a base level of thirty-eight, applied a two-level
       reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(18), and reduced three
       more levels under § 3E1.1 for Marquez’s timely acceptance of
       responsibility, yielding a total offense level of thirty-three. The
       guideline imprisonment range for Marquez was 135 to 168 months.
              Marquez objected to the calculation, arguing that he should
       have received an additional downward adjustment for playing only
       a minor role in the offense conduct. At the sentencing hearing,
       Marquez raised two more objections. He took issue with the
       report’s conclusion that the court had jurisdiction and with its
       description his role as “chief engineer” instead of “first mechanic.”
       The district court overruled all objections, adopted the PSI
       calculation, applied a downward variance from the guideline
       range, and sentenced Marquez to ninety-seven months
       imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Marquez
       appealed.
                                        II.
               Marquez raises three issues on appeal. First, he argues that
       the district court lacked jurisdiction under the Maritime Drug Law
       Enforcement Act. Second, he argues that the district court erred in
       denying the motion to suppress. And third, he argues that the
       district court committed clear error by denying Marquez’s request
       for a minor-role reduction. Our opinion in Hurtado resolves the
       first two issues against Marquez. The district court properly
       exercised jurisdiction under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement
       Act because Cameroon, the vessel’s flag nation, consented to
USCA11 Case: 21-12945     Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 03/05/2024    Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                21-12945

       United States jurisdiction before trial began. Hurtado, 89 F.4th at
       891–95. And the district court properly denied the motion to
       suppress because the Fourth Amendment’s protections do not
       extend to searches and seizures of non-citizens arrested in
       international waters. Id. at 195.
              The district court also did not clearly err when it denied
       Marquez the requested role reduction. See United States v. Bernal-
       Benitez, 594 F.3d 1303, 1320 (11th Cir. 2010). The defendant has the
       burden of establishing his minor role in the offense by a
       preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Rodriguez De Varon,
       175 F.3d 930, 939 (11th Cir. 1999). “Two principles guide the
       determination of whether a defendant played a minor role in the
       criminal scheme: (1) the defendant’s role in the relevant conduct
       for which she has been held accountable at sentencing, and (2) her
       role as compared to that of other participants in her relevant
       conduct.” United States v. Presendieu, 880 F.3d 1228, 1249 (11th Cir.
       2018) (quotation omitted).
              Neither factor weighs in favor of Marquez. Under the first
       principle, we consider whether Marquez “played a relatively minor
       role in the conduct for which [he] has already been held
       accountable—not a minor role in any larger criminal conspiracy.”
       De Varon, 175 F.3d at 944. At sentencing, Marquez was not held
       accountable for his conduct in some larger conspiracy, and he was
       integral to the drug-trafficking scheme for which he was held
       accountable. As first mechanic, Marquez was responsible for
       preventing the ship from sinking and keeping the engine operating
USCA11 Case: 21-12945     Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 03/05/2024    Page: 5 of 5

       21-12945               Opinion of the Court                        5

       at all times—a task made even more crucial given the ship’s state
       of disrepair.
               As for the second principle, Marquez’s role in the drug-
       trafficking scheme was generally larger than that of his co-
       conspirators. Besides the captain—who received an enhancement
       for his role—Marquez exercised the greatest amount of
       responsibility on the ship. He retained significant decisionmaking
       authority as to maintaining and keeping the vessel afloat. And he
       was the only individual besides the captain to communicate with
       the organizers of the conspiracy. At one point, even the captain
       was told that Marquez was the boss and that he would find out the
       coordinates of the ultimate destination from Marquez.
              Here, the district court’s conclusion about Marquez’s role in
       the offense is not clearly erroneous because its “decision is
       supported by the record and does not involve a misapplication of a
       rule of law.” United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182, 1192 (11th
       Cir. 2016) (quotation omitted).
             AFFIRMED.