Court Opinion

ID: 9387114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-14 20:00:42.1114+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:11.529226
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 19-11354   Document: 122-1      Date Filed: 04/14/2023   Page: 1 of 15

                                                             [PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 19-11354
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiff-Appellee,
        versus
        STANLEY WINTFIELD ROLLE,

                                                   Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cr-20869-PCH-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 19-11354      Document: 122-1       Date Filed: 04/14/2023      Page: 2 of 15

        2                       Opinion of the Court                   19-11354

        Before WILSON, JORDAN, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
        WILSON, Circuit Judge:
               Stanley Wintfield Rolle appeals the district court’s denial of
        his motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to state a crime. In
        his motion, Rolle argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a) does not apply ex-
        traterritorially. We affirm the district court’s denial of Rolle’s mo-
        tion to dismiss and hold that §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), (a)(1)(A)(v)(I),
        and (a)(2)(B)(ii) apply to his extraterritorial conduct.
                                 I.     BACKGROUND
               On October 24, 2018, United States Coast Guard and Cus-
        toms and Border Protection officers (collectively, officers) detected
        a 25-foot boat in United States territorial waters, traveling west to-
        ward Miami, Florida. The boat was in the United States contiguous
        zone, about 19 nautical miles from the United States coast, when
        the officers spotted it. Due to its erratic travel patterns, the officers
        pursued the boat as it headed east. They noticed the boat riding
        low in the water (indicating a heavy load), multiple people on deck,
        and an expired Florida registration number on the outer hull. The
        officers apprehended the boat about 20 nautical miles off the coast
        of Bimini, Bahamas.
               On the boat they found 16 individuals whom Rolle had
        picked up in Bimini. The officers also found $23,400 in Rolle’s pos-
        session. Rolle said he was working for a man in Bimini who had
        given him the money, a GPS, and instructions to take the boat and
        the individuals toward the United States border. There, Rolle was
USCA11 Case: 19-11354      Document: 122-1        Date Filed: 04/14/2023    Page: 3 of 15

        19-11354                 Opinion of the Court                         3

        to meet another boat, onto which he would transfer the individuals
        and the money. None of the 16 individuals had permission to enter
        the United States.
                In November 2018, the government filed an indictment in
        the Southern District of Florida charging Rolle with one count of
        conspiracy to encourage and induce aliens to enter the United
        States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I); 16 counts of en-
        couraging and inducing aliens to enter the United States, in viola-
        tion of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv); 16 counts of bringing aliens to
        the United States for commercial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
        § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii); and one count of conspiracy to allow, procure,
        and permit aliens to enter the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C.
        § 1327. Rolle pled not guilty. In December 2018, the government
        filed a superseding indictment with the same charges.1
               Rolle filed a motion to dismiss the superseding indictment,
        arguing that it failed to state a crime because his conduct occurred
        outside the United States. The district court denied his motion,
        finding that the charging statutes apply extraterritorially. After a
        two-day trial, the jury found Rolle guilty on all counts in violation
        of § 1324, but not the count in violation of § 1327. The district
        court sentenced Rolle to a term of 60 months’ imprisonment and
        three years’ supervised release. This appeal followed.

        1 The superseding indictment only modified Rolle’s name.
USCA11 Case: 19-11354     Document: 122-1      Date Filed: 04/14/2023    Page: 4 of 15

        4                       Opinion of the Court                19-11354

                          II.    STANDARD OF REVIEW
               We review the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss
        an indictment for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Farias,
        836 F.3d 1315, 1323 (11th Cir. 2016). We review whether a statute
        applies extraterritorially de novo. United States v. Obando, 891
        F.3d 929, 933 (11th Cir. 2018).
                                 III.   DISCUSSION
               Rolle argues we should reverse the district court and vacate
        his convictions because his conduct occurred outside the United
        States, and the statutes under which he was charged do not apply
        extraterritorially. Because Rolle was acquitted of the § 1327
        charge, we examine only whether §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), (1)(A)(v)(I),
        and 2(B)(ii) apply extraterritorially—an issue of first impression in
        our circuit.
              Section 1324(a)(1)(A) creates criminal penalties for anyone
        who
              (iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter,
              or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless
              disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or
              residence is or will be in violation of law; or

              (v)(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the
              preceding acts . . .

        8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A). Section 1324(a)(2)(B) provides:
USCA11 Case: 19-11354       Document: 122-1      Date Filed: 04/14/2023     Page: 5 of 15

        19-11354                   Opinion of the Court                      5

               Any person who, knowing or in reckless disregard of
               the fact that an alien has not received prior official au-
               thorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United
               States, brings to or attempts to bring to the United
               States in any manner whatsoever, such alien [shall]
               ...

               (B) in the case of . . .

               (ii) an offense done for the purpose of commercial ad-
               vantage or private financial gain . . .

               be fined under Title 18 and shall be imprisoned . . .

        Id. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii).
                Generally, courts presume that “legislation of Congress, un-
        less a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the
        territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” United States v. Bel-
        fast, 611 F.3d 783, 811 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Nieman v. Dryclean
        U.S.A. Franchise Co., 178 F.3d 1126, 1129 (11th Cir. 1999)).
        Whether Congress intended a statute to apply extraterritorially is a
        question of statutory interpretation. United States v. MacAllister,
        160 F.3d 1304, 1307 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). One purpose of
        the presumption against extraterritoriality is to avoid clashes be-
        tween the laws of the United States and the laws of other nations.
        Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108, 115 (2013). But
        the presumption applies “across the board, ‘regardless of whether
        there is a risk of conflict between the American statute and a for-
        eign law.’” RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. Eur. Cmty., 579 U.S. 325, 336
USCA11 Case: 19-11354      Document: 122-1       Date Filed: 04/14/2023      Page: 6 of 15

        6                       Opinion of the Court                   19-11354

        (2016) (quoting Morrison v. Nat’l Austl. Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247,
        255 (2010)).
               There are two approaches to analyzing extraterritoriality in
        the Supreme Court’s precedents: one is set forth in United States v.
        Bowman, 260 U.S. 94 (1922), and the other is found in the more
        recent Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247
        (2010), and its progeny. See RJR Nabisco, 579 U.S. at 337; Kiobel,
        569 U.S. at 115–16. The parties dispute the continued vitality of
        Bowman in light of Morrison and its progeny. We conclude that
        Bowman survives Morrison and that, applying Bowman,
        §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), (1)(A)(v)(I), and (2)(B)(ii) apply extraterritori-
        ally.
                The Bowman Court held that the presumption against ex-
        traterritoriality does not apply “to criminal statutes which are, as a
        class, not logically dependent on their locality for the government’s
        jurisdiction, but are enacted because of the right of the government
        to defend itself against obstruction, or fraud wherever perpe-
        trated . . . .” 260 U.S. at 98. The Supreme Court carved out this
        exception because it recognized that, for some criminal offenses,
        “limit[ing] their locus to the strictly territorial jurisdiction would be
        greatly to curtail the scope and usefulness of the statute and leave
        open a large immunity for frauds . . . .” Id.
                Our court has long recognized Bowman as establishing “the
        rule that Congress need not expressly provide for extraterritorial
        application of a criminal statute if the nature of the offense is such
        that it may be inferred.” MacAllister, 160 F.3d at 1307–08; see also
USCA11 Case: 19-11354        Document: 122-1         Date Filed: 04/14/2023        Page: 7 of 15

        19-11354                  Opinion of the Court                               7

        Belfast, 611 F.3d at 813–14; United States v. Frank, 599 F.3d 1221,
        1230 (11th Cir. 2010); United States v. Plummer, 221 F.3d 1298,
        1304–05 (11th Cir. 2000); United States v. Baker, 609 F.2d 134, 136–
        37 (5th Cir. 1980); United States v. Perez-Herrera, 610 F.2d 289,
        290–92 (5th Cir. 1980). 2
               We hold that we may infer the extraterritorial application of
        the § 1324(a) subsections under which Rolle was charged. First, the
        subsections—which prohibit encouraging, inducing, or bringing al-
        iens into the United States—target conduct that can take place out-
        side the United States. Second, the nature of the offenses is such
        that limiting them to the United States would greatly “curtail the
        scope and usefulness of the statute.” Bowman, 260 U.S. at 98.
              A.      The Supreme Court Has Not Overturned Bowman
               Rolle argues the Supreme Court’s decisions in Morrison, Ki-
        obel, and RJR Nabisco have abrogated—or have at least under-
        mined—Bowman, so we may not infer extraterritoriality but must
        instead apply the presumption against it “across the board.”
               We disagree. The Supreme Court did not indicate in Mor-
        rison, Kiobel, nor RJR Nabisco that Bowman has been overturned,
        and it is not our prerogative to overrule the Supreme Court. See
        Hylton v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 992 F.3d 1154, 1161 (11th Cir. 2021)

        2 All decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to close of busi-
        ness on September 30, 1981, are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit.
        Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
USCA11 Case: 19-11354     Document: 122-1      Date Filed: 04/14/2023    Page: 8 of 15

        8                      Opinion of the Court                19-11354

        (“[O]nly the Supreme Court may overturn its precedents . . . .”).
        Unless the Supreme Court overturns Bowman, it remains binding.
        Motorcity of Jacksonville, Ltd. v. Se. Bank N.A., 120 F.3d 1140, 1143
        (11th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (“The courts of appeals must follow Su-
        preme Court precedent that has ‘direct application’ in a case, even
        if it appears that the reasoning of the Supreme Court precedent has
        been rejected in other cases.” (quoting Rodriquez de Quijas v.
        Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989))).
                Moreover, under the prior-precedent rule, we are bound by
        our circuit’s own precedents interpreting and applying Bowman.
        Scott v. United States, 890 F.3d 1239, 1257 (11th Cir. 2018). There-
        fore, we reject Rolle’s argument that Morrison, Kiobel, and RJR
        Nabisco have abrogated our caselaw applying Bowman, which, no-
        tably, includes caselaw postdating and citing Morrison. See Belfast,
        611 F.3d at 811.
            B.    Extraterritorial Application of § 1324(a) May Be Inferred
               Having clarified that Bowman remains binding law, we
        must now answer whether § 1324(a)’s scope and usefulness would
        be greatly limited if the statute were restricted to the territorial
        United States. Bowman, 260 U.S. at 98. We answer in the affirm-
        ative.
               Section 1324 is an immigration statute that creates criminal
        penalties for, among other conduct, knowingly committing, or at-
        tempting to commit, the following offenses: bringing an alien to
        the United States; concealing, harboring, or shielding from
USCA11 Case: 19-11354       Document: 122-1         Date Filed: 04/14/2023        Page: 9 of 15

        19-11354                  Opinion of the Court                              9

        detection an alien in the United States; encouraging or inducing an
        alien to come to the United States; or engaging in a conspiracy to
        commit, or aiding or abetting, any of these offenses. 3 8 U.S.C.
        §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(i)–(v). The statute also imposes a fine and term of
        imprisonment for knowingly bringing, or attempting to bring, an
        alien to the United States for financial gain. Id. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii).
                By creating criminal penalties for such conduct, Congress
        sought to deter people from helping unauthorized aliens enter or
        remain in the United States illegally. Given the nature of illegal
        immigration, much of the conduct under the statute is likely to oc-
        cur beyond, at, or near our borders. This strongly suggests that
        Congress intended the statute to apply to extraterritorial conduct.
        See, e.g., United States v. Delgado-Garcia, 374 F.3d 1337, 1345
        (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“This contextual feature of § 1324(a) establishes
        that it is fundamentally international, not simply domestic, in focus
        and effect.”). Much of the conduct is also likely to occur in foreign
        countries, especially in the initial stages of an alien-smuggling op-
        eration.
               For example, a person in a foreign country could encourage
        an alien to enter the United States and then attempt to bring the

        3 The statute also creates criminal penalties for anyone who knowingly “trans-
        ports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United
        States by means of transportation or otherwise.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii).
        We express no opinion on this subsection. Our decision addresses only the
        extraterritorial application of the subsections under which Rolle was con-
        victed.
USCA11 Case: 19-11354     Document: 122-1      Date Filed: 04/14/2023     Page: 10 of 15

         10                     Opinion of the Court                19-11354

         alien into the country—direct violations of § 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) and
         (iv)—but the plot could be intercepted before the perpetrator and
         the alien reach the United States border. If § 1324(a) applied only
         domestically, the government would not be able to prosecute the
         exact conduct Congress intended to reach in creating § 1324. See
         Delgado-Garcia, 374 F.3d at 1347.
                Other circuits have similarly found that subsections of
         § 1324(a) apply extraterritorially. The D.C. Circuit came to that
         conclusion in United States v. Delgado-Garcia. Id. at 1344. There,
         the defendant, like Rolle, was charged with conspiring to encour-
         age or induce aliens to enter the United States and with attempting
         to bring unauthorized aliens into the United States. Id. at 1339.
         The court held that the statute’s context warranted a reading in fa-
         vor of extraterritoriality. Id. at 1345. We find the D.C. Circuit’s
         reasoning persuasive:
               On its face, [§ 1324(a)] concerns much more than
               merely “domestic conditions.” It protects the borders
               of the United States against illegal immigration. . . .
               [T]his country’s border-control policies are of crucial
               importance to the national security and foreign policy
               of the United States, regardless whether it would be
               possible, in an abstract sense, to protect our borders
               using only domestic measures. . . . It is natural to ex-
               pect that a statute that protects the borders of the
               United States, unlike ordinary domestic statutes,
               would reach those outside the borders. . . . [A]s the
               Supreme Court observed in United States v.
USCA11 Case: 19-11354     Document: 122-1          Date Filed: 04/14/2023   Page: 11 of 15

         19-11354               Opinion of the Court                         11

               Bowman, “the natural inference from the character of
               the offense[s]” is that an extraterritorial location
               “would be a probable place for [their] commission.”

         Id. at 1345 (quoting Bowman, 260 U.S. at 99).
                The D.C. Circuit went on to explain how the terms of
         § 1324(a)(1)(A) and (a)(2) suggest application to much extraterrito-
         rial conduct:
               Because an alien will not be in the United States if the
               attempt is incomplete, the offender will ordinarily
               also be outside the United States during the attempt.
               This is true even if the government foils many incom-
               plete attempts at the borders of the United States.
               That many attempts to bring someone into the
               United States will occur outside the United States is
               strongly suggestive that these subsections and their
               neighbors apply, as a matter of ordinary language, to
               extraterritorial acts.

                                       .   .   .

               Certainly it is possible to induce a potential illegal im-
               migrant to come to the United States from within the
               United States, . . . but it is obviously much easier to
               do so when in proximity to the immigrant. It is also
               possible to conspire to induce illegal immigration into
               the United States from anywhere in the world; but,
               again, it is easier to do so outside the United States, in
               proximity to those who carry out the plot.
USCA11 Case: 19-11354      Document: 122-1        Date Filed: 04/14/2023     Page: 12 of 15

         12                      Opinion of the Court                   19-11354

         Id. at 1347–48.
                In United States v. Villanueva, the Fifth Circuit also held that
         § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii) applies extraterritorially. 408 F.3d 193, 196 (5th
         Cir. 2005). In reaching this conclusion, the court considered the
         text of the statute; the statute’s legislative history; the fact that the
         statute criminalizes attempts; and the context of immigration stat-
         utes which, “by their very nature, pertain to activity at or near in-
         ternational borders.” Id. at 198–99.
                Similarly, in United States v. Beliard, the First Circuit held
         that a conviction under § 1324 for inducing or encouraging the il-
         legal entry of aliens into the United States could be sustained where
         the defendant’s acts took place outside the United States. 618 F.2d
         886, 887 (1st Cir. 1980) (citing to Ninth and Second Circuit cases
         that held the same).
                Finally, the Ninth Circuit recognized the extraterritoriality
         of § 1324(a)(2) in dicta in United States v. Lopez. See 484 F.3d 1186,
         1194–95 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc). The court stated that, “[i]n con-
         struing the ‘brings to’ offense, we observe initially that ‘[t]he lan-
         guage of the statute itself indicates that Congress intended it to ap-
         ply to extraterritorial conduct.’” Id. (quoting Villanueva, 408 F.3d
         at 198).
                Our interpretation of the statute aligns with the other cir-
         cuits that have ruled on this issue. The very nature of alien smug-
         gling involves foreign countries, and accomplishing the crimes al-
         most always requires action abroad. Thus, limiting § 1324(a) to the
USCA11 Case: 19-11354      Document: 122-1       Date Filed: 04/14/2023      Page: 13 of 15

         19-11354                Opinion of the Court                         13

         territorial United States would significantly curtail the effectiveness
         of the statute because it would prevent the government from pros-
         ecuting those who engage in the targeted conduct but simply fail
         to cross our border. See Bowman, 260 U.S. at 98. A strictly domes-
         tic reading of § 1324(a) would “leave open a large immunity” for
         alien smuggling, so, given the nature of the offenses, we may infer
         that the statute applies extraterritorially. Id.
                Our court has applied the Bowman exception in similar
         cases despite the absence of an express statement of extraterritorial
         application on the face of the statute. See, e.g., MacAllister, 160
         F.3d at 1306–09 (applying Bowman and holding that a cocaine con-
         spiracy statute lacking an express extraterritoriality statement ap-
         plies to a Canadian citizen’s conduct abroad); Plummer, 221 F.3d
         at 1304–05 (listing cases in which our circuit and other circuits “rou-
         tinely inferred congressional intent to provide for extraterritorial
         jurisdiction over foreign offenses that cause domestic harm”);
         Frank, 599 F.3d at 1230–32 (applying Bowman and holding that a
         child-sex-trafficking statute applies extraterritorially despite lacking
         an express extraterritoriality statement). We agree with the gov-
         ernment that it would defy logic to conclude that Congress—in cre-
         ating a statute that prohibits attempts and conspiracies to bring or
         encourage aliens to come to the United States—would hinder its
         own efforts by restricting the statute to purely domestic conduct.
                Bowman’s principles and the weight of authority from our
         sister circuits overwhelmingly support our conclusion that extra-
         territoriality may be inferred from Congress’ intent to prevent
USCA11 Case: 19-11354       Document: 122-1        Date Filed: 04/14/2023      Page: 14 of 15

         14                       Opinion of the Court                    19-11354

         illegal immigration and from the nature of the offenses—each of
         which contemplate conduct at, near, and beyond our borders.
         Therefore, we hold that §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), (a)(1)(A)(v)(I), and
         (a)(2)(B)(ii) apply extraterritorially.
              IV.    JURISDICTION OVER ROLLE COMPORTS WITH
                                INTERNATIONAL LAW
                Before giving extraterritorial effect to a statute, we must also
         consider whether doing so would violate international law. Frank,
         599 F.3d at 1233. Pursuant to the law of nations, a nation may ex-
         ercise criminal jurisdiction under five general principles: “(1) the
         ‘objective’ territorial, (2) the national, (3) the protective, (4) the uni-
         versal, and (5) the passive personality.” MacAllister, 160 F.3d at
         1308 n.9. Here, the protective principle allows the United States to
         exercise jurisdiction over Rolle. Under the protective principle,
         “jurisdiction is based on whether the national interest is injured.”
         United States v. Benitez, 741 F.2d 1312, 1316–17 (11th Cir. 1984)
         (upholding jurisdiction over a non-United States citizen where con-
         duct occurred abroad and the charging statutes did not include an
         express statement of extraterritorial application). The government
         asserts—and Rolle does not dispute—that Rolle’s attempt to bring
         aliens to the United States and his conspiracy to encourage aliens
         to come to the United States clearly violate our country’s border-
         control interests. We agree that his conduct injures “the national
         interest,” id. at 1316, and thus the government properly exercised
         jurisdiction over Rolle under the protective principle.
USCA11 Case: 19-11354      Document: 122-1      Date Filed: 04/14/2023     Page: 15 of 15

         19-11354               Opinion of the Court                        15

                                 V.     CONCLUSION
                We hold that Bowman remains binding law and that, under
         Bowman, §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), (a)(1)(A)(v)(I), and (a)(2)(B)(ii) apply
         to Rolle’s extraterritorial conduct. Accordingly, we affirm Rolle’s
         convictions.
                AFFIRMED.