United States v. Trinity Rolando Cabezas-Montano ( 2020 )

Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 1 of 97
[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-14294
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:16-cr-10050-KMM-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TRINITY ROLANDO CABEZAS-MONTANO,
ADALBERTO FRICKSON PALACIOS-SOLIS,
HECTOR LEONARDO GUAGUA-ALARCON,
Defendants-Appellants.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 30, 2020)
Before ROSENBAUM, TJOFLAT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
HULL, Circuit Judge:
After a jury trial, defendants Trinity Rolando Cabezas-Montano, Hector
Leonardo Guagua-Alarcon, and Adalberto Frickson Palacios-Solis appeal their
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 2 of 97
convictions and sentences under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act
(“MDLEA”). See 46 U.S.C. §§ 70501-70508. They were convicted of conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute over five kilograms of cocaine while on board a
vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 46 U.S.C.
§ 70506(b), and possession with intent to distribute over five kilograms of cocaine
while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in violation
of 46 U.S.C. § 70503(a)(1).
As to their convictions, the defendants, either together or separately,
challenge: (1) the constitutionality of the MDLEA; (2) the district court’s
determination of MDLEA subject matter jurisdiction; (3) the delay in presentment
for a probable cause hearing; (4) the denial of their motion in limine to exclude
evidence of post-arrest, pre-Miranda 1 silence; (5) the sufficiency of the evidence;
and (6) the denial of their motions for a mistrial based on the government’s alleged
Brady 2 violation. As to their sentences, the defendants, either together or
separately, challenge: (1) the constitutionality of the denial of safety-valve relief in
their MDLEA case; (2) the denial of a minor-role reduction; and (3) the denial of
their motions for a downward variance. They also claim the sentencing court
committed procedural error and imposed substantively unreasonable sentences.
1
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966).
2
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963).
2
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 3 of 97
After careful review of the record and the parties’ briefs, and with the
benefit of oral argument, we affirm the defendants’ convictions and sentences. We
start by recounting the trial evidence about the defendants’ crimes. 3
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Coast Guard’s Detection of the Go-Fast Vessel
On the night of October 24, 2016, the U.S. Coast Guard cutter Hamilton was
patrolling in the eastern Pacific Ocean at 10 degrees latitude and 91 degrees
longitude, which was approximately 200 miles off the coast of Central America,
namely Guatemala and El Salvador. During the patrol, around 9:05 p.m., a Coast
Guard marine patrol aircraft notified the Hamilton cutter that it had detected a go-
fast vessel (“GFV”) that was traveling northbound at a high rate of speed and was
approximately six nautical miles away from the cutter. 4
The target GFV was 30-to-35 feet long, had two outboard engines, and was
carrying three passengers on board. GFVs, also known as a “Panga” or “Panga-
style” vessels, are small vessels designed to cut through the water with less friction
so that they can travel at higher speeds. GFVs are low-profile and have a very
3
While there were two jury trials, the first resulted in a mistrial. The facts we recount are
based on the evidence from the second jury trial.
4
Coast Guard personnel testified that, while at sea, they use an international military unit
of time called “Zulu.” While it was 9:05 p.m. on October 24, local time when the Coast Guard
aircraft contacted the Hamilton cutter, under Zulu time it was 2:05 a.m. on October 25. To avoid
confusion, we will refer to local time.
3
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 4 of 97
different shape, style, and speed than a fishing boat. Drug smugglers commonly
use GFVs to transport drugs and travel at night without navigation lights to avoid
detection.
After being notified of the GFV, the Hamilton crew met for a briefing in the
cutter’s Combat Information Center (“CIC”). The CIC was equipped with a
Forward-Looking Infrared Radar (“FLIR”) system and various other radars that
enabled the Coast Guard to monitor nighttime vessel activity on the high seas. The
FLIR system uses heat-based infrared detection to create a video in black (the
objects emitting more heat) and white (the objects emitting less heat) depicting the
activities or objects being monitored. The FLIR system allowed the Coast Guard
to see vessels, passengers, and any jettisoned objects at night.
Generally speaking, Coast Guard members in the CIC stay in contact with
all other Hamilton units throughout interdictions and keep them updated on the
course and distance of target vessels. The three Hamilton units included (1) a
helicopter, (2) an over-the-horizon (“OTH”) vessel, and (3) a long-range
interceptor (“LRI”) vessel. The helicopter also was equipped with a FLIR
monitoring system that recorded its observations on video too. The OTH vessel
was equipped with search lights, radar, and weapons. The crew on these Hamilton
units were equipped with and used night-vision goggles.
After the CIC briefing, the Hamilton crew decided to dispatch all three
4
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 5 of 97
units—the helicopter, OTH vessel, and LRI vessel—to intercept the target GFV.
At launch time, it was very dark due to lack of moonlight, but the weather and sea
conditions were calm and without wind.
B. Helicopter Chase
At 9:34 p.m., the Hamilton helicopter launched. At 9:45 p.m., the helicopter
located the 30-to-35-foot GFV with two outboard engines that was carrying three
individuals. The GFV appeared to be “dead-in-water” but started moving again.5
The helicopter moved alongside the GFV. At this point, the GFV and the
helicopter still were approximately 200 to 250 nautical miles from the coast of
Central America. The CIC on the Hamilton cutter eventually picked up the GFV
on its FLIR and other radar systems and continuously monitored it.
While pursuing the GFV, the Hamilton helicopter crew obtained a statement
of no objection from Coast Guard headquarters, entitling it to request that the
vessel stop and to fire warning and disabling shots if necessary. The helicopter
crew broadcasted orders in English and Spanish for the GFV to stop, ordered the
passengers to put their hands up and move to the front of the vessel, and flashed its
blue law enforcement lights and Coast Guard emblem. The GFV disregarded the
instructions and continued moving in an evasive, zig-zag path. This prompted the
helicopter crew to continue its chase and to fire three rounds of warning shots.
5
“Dead-in-water” means that the vessel has stopped and is motionless in the water.
5
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 6 of 97
Every fifth round that the helicopter crew fired contained a “tracer round,” a large
and easily-visible red glow that detached from the projectile before entering the
water. The GFV continued to disobey the orders.
As the helicopter continued to chase the GFV, its crew saw the GFV’s
passengers jettisoning packages overboard. One package remained attached to the
vessel and dragged behind in the water. The helicopter crew marked the location
where the packages were jettisoned with chemical lights and relayed the coordinate
positions to the Hamilton cutter. The helicopter FLIR video showed that the
GFV’s left side engine was cooler than the right side engine.
The GFV slowed down and came to a stop, at which point the passengers
appeared to crank the engines to restart them. The GFV began moving again.
Because the GFV passengers were next to the vessel’s engines, the helicopter crew
fired two rounds of warning shots near the aft of the GFV to get them to move
toward the front of the vessel. The passengers complied, but the helicopter crew
was unable to fire disabling shots at the GFV’s engines without endangering the
passengers. At this point, the helicopter was running low on fuel, so it
communicated to the Hamilton cutter the GFV’s last-known coordinate position
and headed back to the cutter to refuel. Around 11:00 p.m., the helicopter crew
lost its visual of the GFV and landed back at the Hamilton cutter at 11:05 p.m.
C. OTH and LRI Vessel Searches and Recovery of a Cocaine Bale
6
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 7 of 97
Around 10:00 p.m., the OTH vessel launched. After the helicopter headed
back to the Hamilton cutter, the OTH vessel spent 20 to 30 minutes searching the
area that the helicopter crew indicated was the last known coordinate location of
the GFV but was unsuccessful. The Hamilton cutter instructed the OTH crew to
suspend its search for the GFV and instead head to the scene of the jettisoned
packages. The OTH crew found the chemical lights left by the helicopter crew and
searched the area but found no packages.
Approximately 31 minutes after the helicopter crew lost its visual of the
GFV, the Hamilton cutter reacquired the GFV’s location using its CIC’s FLIR and
other radar systems. The Hamilton cutter crew observed on the CIC’s FLIR
system that the GFV was dead-in-water and that one of the passengers was flailing
and frantically trying to fix the engine. The cutter crew informed the OTH crew
that it had reacquired sight of the GFV and redirected the OTH vessel to that
coordinate position. While en route to the specified location, the OTH crew
recovered a 20-kilogram cocaine bale floating in the water along with a buoy tied
to a black line. The OTH crew relayed to the Hamilton cutter the coordinate
location of the recovered cocaine bale and continued its search for the GFV.
While the OTH crew was recovering the bale, the LRI vessel launched
around 11:33 to 11:43 p.m. Soon thereafter, the Hamilton cutter instructed the
OTH crew to resume its search for the jettisoned packages because the LRI vessel
7
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 8 of 97
had reached the GFV and was preparing to approach. The Hamilton cutter crew
observed the LRI’s approach of the GFV on the CIC’s FLIR system. Meanwhile,
the OTH crew searched for about two hours but recovered no additional bales.
Samples of the recovered bale’s contents, which consisted of 20 individually
wrapped 1-kilogram packages, field-tested positive for cocaine.
D. LRI Crew’s Boarding and Search of the GFV
The LRI vessel approached a dead-in-water GFV that had two outboard
engines and three passengers. The GFV, which had no navigation lights, was in
international waters, 200-plus miles away from the closest land mass. The LRI
vessel illuminated its blue law enforcement light and announced over a loud hailer
in English and Spanish, “United States Coast Guard, put your hands in the air and
move towards the front of the vessel.” The GFV’s passengers complied with these
orders.
After receiving permission for right-of-visit boarding, a boarding team from
the LRI vessel then boarded the GFV. While conducting an initial safety sweep,
the LRI boarding team members observed that much of the GFV had been wiped
down with fuel.
The LRI boarding team, which included a Spanish translator, began asking
right-of-visit questions to determine the nationality of the vessel. The team noticed
the vessel was not flying any flag and had no other indicia of nationality. The team
8
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 9 of 97
twice asked the GFV’s passengers if anyone wished to make a claim of nationality
for the vessel. The passengers—Cabezas-Montano, Guagua-Alarcon, and
Palacios-Solis—did not respond either time. When asked to identify the master of
the vessel, the defendants did not respond. When asked a second time, Guagua-
Alarcon and Palacios-Solis pointed to Cabezas-Montano, who in turn pointed to
Palacios-Solis. The boarding team asked Cabezas-Montano and Palacios-Solis if
either of them was the master, but they did not answer and continued to point at
each other. The LRI boarding team concluded that there was no claim of
nationality for the vessel and that no one claimed to be the master.
When asked about the GFV’s last port of call, Palacios-Solis stated that it
was Manta, Ecuador. According to one LRI boarding team member, without a
claim of nationality for the vessel or a master to take the claim from, the Coast
Guard “take[s] the last port of call as the nationality of the vessel.” The boarding
team also observed an Ecuadorian maker’s mark on the back of the GFV indicating
that the vessel was manufactured in Ecuador. When asked about the date of last
port of call, Palacios-Solis stated that he and the other two defendants had gone
fishing but ended up lost at sea for 32 days. The team observed, however, that the
defendants did not seem happy to see Coast Guard personnel and declined the
Coast Guard’s offer of food and water.
The LRI boarding team conveyed to the Hamilton cutter that the GFV bore
9
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 10 of 97
an Ecuadorian maker’s mark and that its last port of call was in Ecuador. The
Hamilton cutter contacted Ecuador to obtain a statement of no objection to permit
the U.S. Coast Guard to conduct a full law enforcement boarding. According to
the Coast Guard personnel’s testimony, a foreign government, in response to the
Coast Guard’s request for a statement-of-no-objection, could claim the vessel and
deny boarding, make no claim, or claim the vessel and permit boarding. Here,
Ecuador provided its statement of no objection to a Coast Guard Flag Officer early
on the morning of October 25. The LRI boarding team detained the defendants,
placed them on the LRI vessel, and began its full boarding onto the GFV.
The LRI boarding team swabbed the GFV’s surfaces that were not saturated
with fuel and the defendants’ hands for trace quantities of drugs. The defendants
appeared visibly concerned when the swabbing began. Ultimately, the Coast
Guard found trace amounts of drugs: (1) one defendant tested positive for trace
amounts of cocaine and PCP; and (2) trace amounts of cocaine were detected on
the GFV’s bow and tiller.
The LRI boarding team also conducted a full search of the GFV. The team
found: (1) a buoy and black line similar in appearance to the buoy and black line
that were recovered where the jettisoned cocaine bale was found; (2) the same
brown packing tape that was wrapped around the recovered bale; (3) eleven 25-
gallon fuel drums, most of which were full; (4) a phone charger; (5) a satellite
10
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 11 of 97
phone battery; (6) a document containing satellite phone numbers; and (7) a
document containing coordinates. Although no phones were on board, a team
member testified that drug smugglers in GFVs sometimes throw their electronic
equipment overboard to prevent the Coast Guard from recovering stored data. The
team observed a wet shirt covering the left engine, which lessened the engine’s
heat signature and made detection more difficult.
As to the defendants’ fishing trip story, the LRI boarding team found fishing
hooks and knives but did not find any bait, fish, or remnants of fish. The team
found lines, but they appeared to be unserviceable and not usable for fishing. The
team also found large quantities of water and sports drinks, as well as fresh fruit
and food items that did not appear to be 32 days old. The bottom of the GFV
appeared extremely clean and free from growth, which was an unusual state for a
vessel that was allegedly adrift at sea for 32 days.
After being onboard for 12 hours, the LRI crew left the GFV and sank the
vessel because it was a navigation hazard. The LRI vessel headed back to the
Hamilton cutter, where the defendants were taken for processing.
E. Coast Guard’s Recovery of 24 More Cocaine Bales
After conducting a drift analysis based on factors such as current and wind
movement to determine where to search for the jettisoned packages, the OTH
vessel dispatched in the daytime, responded to the designated area, and recovered
11
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 12 of 97
24 additional bales along with buoys equipped with GPS trackers. The 25 total
recovered bales collectively weighed 614 kilograms. Lab testing, based on a
representative 10-kilogram sample, confirmed that the substance in the recovered
bales was cocaine. The tested sample had an estimated purity level of 86 and 89
percent, which was very high and indicated that the drugs were close to their
original source. The cocaine bales’ total wholesale value was over $10 million.
The Coast Guard also found GPS trackers attached to some of the cocaine
bales themselves, which charted their movement as follows. Three trackers
launched between October 15 and 16, 2016, some from the coast of Esmeraldas,
Ecuador and others from the coast of the Ecuadorian and Colombian border. All
three trackers converged when they traveled within the coastal region of Ecuador.
Next, the trackers moved away from the coast of Ecuador, northwest towards the
Galapagos Islands. The trackers then changed course and moved northeast
towards the coast of the Guatemalan and El Salvadorian border. However, the
GPS trackers suddenly stopped moving and then started drifting slowly in a south
or southeast direction—indicating that the trackers were no longer on a vessel—in
the area where the Coast Guard found them on October 24 and 25. The GPS
trackers’ trajectories were consistent with the Hamilton cutter’s and helicopter’s
coordinate range data for the target GFV and the document containing coordinates
found on the defendants’ vessel. Four Coast Guard personnel testified that they
12
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 13 of 97
neither saw nor heard any other vessels in the vicinity during the entirety of the
interdiction.
F. Defendants’ Version of Events
The defendants told a different story. According to Palacios-Solis’s
testimony at trial, he and his codefendants departed from the Esmeraldas, Ecuador,
port for a short, four-day fishing trip on the boat. Palacios-Solis testified that the
boat, of which he was the captain, was a typical Ecuadorian fishing boat. Palacios-
Solis claimed that, while he initially lied to the Coast Guard about not being the
captain, he admitted to his role once he arrived in Florida. The defendants quickly
returned to the Esmeraldas port because the boat’s engines were not working well.
They had a mechanic fix the engine, but Palacios-Solis forgot to change the oil
after the engine was fixed.
They again set out for their fishing trip. On the second day of their fishing
trip, once they were approximately 150 to 200 miles from the Esmeraldas, the
engines failed and Palacios-Solis was not able to repair them. They assumed that
another fishing boat would come along and help them, but none did and they were
left adrift for 27 to 30 days.
According to Palacios-Solis’s testimony, he intentionally covered the
engines to protect them from pirates. The documents discovered during the search
of the GFV were left by previous users and Palacios-Solis denied any knowledge
13
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 14 of 97
of their contents. He testified that the lines on the vessel were for fishing and that
they were rendered unusable by the Coast Guard personnel during their search. He
conceded that the buoy and black line found in the water looked just like the buoy
and black line found on the vessel, which were his. The brown packing tape on the
vessel, however, was not his and Palacios-Solis denied knowing where it came
from. Palacios-Solis testified that the food was 30 days old and was not fresh and
that there was not much food left over by the time the Coast Guard arrived. The
defendants were asleep when the Coast Guard approached their boat, they were
confused by the lights and yelling, and they were scared that the Coast Guard
personnel were going to kill them.
Throughout trial, the government’s witnesses testified as to the coordinate
locations of the critical points during the interdiction of the GFV and of the
recovered cocaine bales. In their case, however, the defendants called a maritime
expert who created a model pointing out discrepancies in the government’s plotted
coordinates. Nonetheless, on cross-examination, the maritime expert conceded
that at least some portions of his method and model were erroneous, incomplete,
and/or misleading.
Notably too, a Coast Guard maritime expert, who conducted a drift analysis,
testified that the defendants’ story about being adrift for about 30 days was
physically impossible given the claimed starting point of the fishing trip, the
14
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 15 of 97
weather and currents, and the coordinate location of the interdiction. The Coast
Guard expert disagreed with the accuracy of the defense expert’s model. The
Coast Guard expert testified that the southward location, where the Hamilton crew
searched for and recovered the bales, was consistent with information regarding
the direction of the GFV.
A Coast Guard health services technician also testified that she observed and
examined the defendants once they were detained and brought aboard the Hamilton
cutter on October 25. The health services technician testified the defendants did
not require any medical intervention and exhibited no signs of malnourishment,
dehydration, malnutrition, lethargy, or extended exposure to the elements.
II. FIRST JURY TRIAL
On December 12, 2016, Palacios-Solis, Cabezas-Montano, and Guagua-
Alarcon made their first entry into the United States, when they were brought to
Key West, Florida, in the Southern District of Florida.
On December 13, a criminal complaint issued against the defendants and
their initial appearances were held before a magistrate judge. The complaint
charged all defendants with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five
kilograms or more of cocaine on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States. In an attached probable-cause affidavit, a Drug Enforcement
Agency (“DEA”) Special Agent stated how: (1) on October 25, the Coast Guard
15
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 16 of 97
detained the defendants and the GFV and then transferred the defendants to the
Hamilton cutter, approximately 215 nautical miles off the coast of Guatemala/El
Salvador; and (2) on December 12, the Coast Guard brought the defendants to Key
West.
On December 16, the defendants were indicted on charges of: (1) conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine on board a
vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 46 U.S.C.
§§ 70503(a)(1), 70506(a) and (b), and 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B) (Count 1); and
(2) possession with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine on board
a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 46 U.S.C.
§§ 70503(a)(1) and 70506(a), 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count
2).
On February 4, 2017, the government filed a motion for the district court to
make a pretrial determination of jurisdiction regarding whether the defendants’
vessel was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The government
submitted that: (1) the stateless GFV was interdicted in international waters and
upon high seas by the Coast Guard on October 24, 2016; (2) at the time of the
interdiction, there were three passengers on board, who were the defendants;
(3) when asked by the Coast Guard, none of the defendants claimed to be the
master of the vessel and none made a claim of nationality for it; and (4) thus, the
16
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 17 of 97
United States determined the vessel to be “without nationality” subjecting the
vessel to the jurisdiction of the United States under 46 U.S.C. § 70502(c)(1)(A)
and (d)(1)(B).
The first trial resulted in a mistrial after the jury was unable to reach a
unanimous verdict. As outlined below, the district court explicitly addressed its
jurisdiction before the second trial.
III. SECOND JURY TRIAL
A. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Indictment
Prior to the second jury trial, all defendants moved to dismiss the indictment
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on three enumerated grounds containing
multiple sub-issues.6 The defendants argued that: (1) there was no evidence that
their vessel was outside the territorial waters of a foreign nation, precluding
jurisdiction based on the vessel’s status as one without nationality; (2) there was no
evidence that the cocaine allegedly being transported by the vessel was destined
for the United States, such that there was no U.S. “nexus” permitting the exercise
of extraterritorial jurisdiction; (3) without a requirement that the trafficking crime
have a “nexus” to the United States, the MDLEA’s jurisdictional element violates
due process; (4) the MDLEA’s requirement that the district court determine the
6
While Palacios-Solis filed the motion to dismiss the indictment, the district court granted
Cabezas-Montano’s and Guagua-Alarcon’s motion to adopt it.
17
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 18 of 97
jurisdictional element, rather than the jury, violates the Fifth and Sixth
Amendment, especially in cases where a vessel is declared “stateless” and the
parties dispute material facts regarding the alleged statelessness; and (5) the
admission of a certification of the Secretary of State to establish extraterritorial
jurisdiction in such a case would violate the Confrontation Clause and constitute
inadmissible hearsay.
In response, the government argued, inter alia, that: (1) the defendants were
interdicted in international waters and upon the high seas when their GFV was
stopped approximately 215 nautical miles southwest of the coast of Guatemala in
the Pacific Ocean; (2) their GFV was without nationality and was subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States; and (3) the defendants’ remaining arguments were
foreclosed by this Court’s precedent.
At a pre-trial hearing before a magistrate judge, defendants’ counsel made
their jurisdictional arguments. The magistrate judge’s report (“R&R”)
recommended the denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss the indictment. The
magistrate judge found that: (1) the vessel was in international waters at the time it
was intercepted by the Coast Guard; (2) jurisdiction existed under
§ 70502(c)(1)(A) of the MDLEA because the defendants’ vessel was “without
nationality”; and (3) this Court’s precedent foreclosed the defendants’
constitutional arguments. Over the defendants’ objections, the district court
18
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 19 of 97
adopted the R&R and denied their motion to dismiss the indictment.
B. Defendants’ Post-Arrest, Pre-Miranda Silence
Next, Palacios-Solis filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of the
defendants’ post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence in response to the Coast Guard’s
interrogation. Palacios-Solis conceded that this Court’s precedent foreclosed his
argument but sought to preserve the issue. Guagua-Alarcon adopted the motion.
In response, the government submitted that it did not intend to elicit, in its
case-in-chief, the defendants’ silence or statements other than their silence or
answers to the Coast Guard’s questions regarding: (1) the master or captain of the
GFV; (2) the nationality of the GFV; (3) the last port of call; and (4) the next port
of call. The government reserved the right to elicit any silence or statements
during the defense’s case and in rebuttal.7
The district court denied Palacios-Solis’s and Guagua-Alarcon’s motion in
limine as moot. The district court highlighted: (1) the defendants’ concession that
this Court’s precedent foreclosed their challenge; (2) the admissibility of their
silence or answers to the questions identified by the government; (3) the
government’s indication that it otherwise would not elicit any other silence or
statements by the defendants; and (4) the government’s rights pertaining to cross-
7
As explained later, the defendants on appeal challenge only the admission of their post-
arrest, pre-Miranda silence.
19
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 20 of 97
examination during the defense’s case and in rebuttal.
C. Pretrial Hearing
Before trial, the district court held a pretrial hearing during which it granted
the defendants’ motion to deem any objection made by one defendant as adopted
by all defendants, unless a defendant opted out. The government clarified that it
intended to elicit during their case-in-chief: (1) the defendants’ silence when asked
about the GFV’s nationality; (2) their actions of pointing to Cabezas-Montano and
Palacios-Solis when asked about the vessel’s master; (3) any statements or silence
about the last and next ports of call; and (4) the defendants’ statement that they
were adrift at sea for about 30 days. Palacios-Solis reiterated that this Court’s
precedent permitted the admission of such evidence, but that he preserved his
challenge to it.
D. Government’s Case-In-Chief
The second jury trial began on July 17, 2017. The government called seven
witnesses: (1) six Coast Guard members who carried out the October 24-through-
25 interdiction operation and testified about the above events; and (2) the DEA
forensic chemist who tested the seized evidence for cocaine.
When Petty Officer Robert Tetzlaff testified as to his observations from the
CIC’s FLIR system—namely, that he observed one of the GFV passengers flailing
and frantically trying to fix the engine—Palacios-Solis moved for a mistrial on
20
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 21 of 97
Brady grounds. Palacios-Solis asserted that Officer Tetzlaff’s testimony indicated
that there was a CIC FLIR video—showing the GFV passengers flailing and trying
to restart the vessel—which the government had not turned over to the defense.
The government responded that it learned of this aspect of Officer Tetzlaff’s
testimony only the day before trial, that it did not possess the CIC’s FLIR video
because it was already recorded over, and that it did not notify the defense because
it did not view the evidence as exculpatory.
The district court agreed that the evidence was inculpatory, not exculpatory,
but directed the government to investigate whether the FLIR video actually was
recorded and/or recorded over. The next day, the government notified the district
court that, while the Coast Guard records its FLIR videos, it records over them if
no preservation request is made, and that it no longer had the October 24/25, 2016
FLIR video. Palacios-Solis renewed his mistrial motion, which Cabezas-Montano
and Guagua-Alarcon joined. The district court denied the motion and the trial
continued. 8
E. Defendants’ Evidence, Government’s Rebuttal, and Rule 29 Motions
The government rested on the third day of trial. The defendants moved for a
8
On direct examination, Officer Tetzlaff testified that the October 24/25 FLIR video
likely was recorded over. During the defense’s cross-examination, Officer Tetzlaff agreed that it
would have been helpful to compare the CIC’s and the helicopter’s FLIR videos and testified
further about his observations from the CIC’s FLIR video on the night of the interdiction. Then,
on redirect examination, Officer Tetzlaff confirmed that he did not tell prosecutors about his CIC
FLIR observations until just before the second trial.
21
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 22 of 97
judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
They argued that there was insufficient evidence of their guilt and the court lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction. 9 The district court denied the defendants’ Rule 29
motions.
The defense then called a maritime expert who prepared a coordinate model
for this case. Palacios-Solis also testified. The defense rested. In rebuttal, the
government called the Coast Guard health services technician and its own maritime
expert who conducted a drift analysis of the defendants’ vessel. The defendants
renewed their Rule 29 motions, which the district court denied.
F. Jury Verdict and Post-Trial Motions
After deliberations, the jury found all three defendants guilty on both counts.
Palacios-Solis filed a post-trial Rule 29 motion claiming again that: (1) there was
insufficient evidence to support his convictions; (2) the court lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction; and (3) the government’s introduction of the defendants’ post-arrest,
pre-Miranda silence violated his Fifth Amendment rights against self-
incrimination. Ultimately, at sentencing, the district court denied Palacios-Solis’s
post-trial Rule 29 motion. Among other things, the district court determined that
no defendant had claimed to be the master of the vessel or claimed any nationality,
9
Palacios-Solis renewed his motion to dismiss the indictment. Guagua-Alarcon adopted
both codefendants’ Rule 29 arguments. The district court stated that after trial it would revisit
the renewed motion to dismiss but that it did not hear anything that would change its prior
determination.
22
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 23 of 97
that the Coast Guard could not confirm or deny the vessel’s nationality, and thus
the vessel was without nationality and subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States. This is the defendants’ appeal.
IV. MDLEA
Before addressing the defendants’ appellate claims, we give some
background about the MDLEA.
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. “The Supreme Court has interpreted that Clause to
contain three distinct grants of power: to define and punish piracies, to define and
punish felonies committed on the high seas, and to define and punish offenses
against the law of nations.” United States v. Campbell, 743 F.3d 802, 805 (11th
Cir. 2014). This MDLEA appeal involves a conviction for a felony offense
defined by an act of Congress under the second grant of power. See id.
Congress enacted the MDLEA to prohibit any person from “knowingly or
intentionally . . . possess[ing] with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled
substance” on board “a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” 46
U.S.C. § 70503(a)(1) and (e)(1), and from conspiring to do the same, id.
§ 70506(b). Specifically, § 70503(a)(1) provides that, “[w]hile on board a covered
vessel, an individual may not knowingly or intentionally . . . possess with intent to
23
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 24 of 97
manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance. Id. § 70503(a)(1) (emphasis
added). The MDLEA defines a “covered vessel” to include, among other things,
“a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” Id. § 70503(e). In turn,
the MDLEA defines a “vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” to
include, among other things, “a vessel without nationality.” Id. § 70502(c)(1)(A).
In 1996, Congress amended the MDLEA to provide that “[j]urisdiction of
the United States with respect to a vessel subject to this chapter is not an element
of an offense.” Id. § 70504(a); see Campbell, 743 F.3d at 805. That section
continues that “[j]urisdictional issues arising under this chapter are preliminary
questions of law to be determined solely by the trial judge.” 46 U.S.C. § 70504(a).
Congress made clear that the MDLEA “applies even though the act is committed
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” Id. § 70503(b).
V. DEFENDANTS’ CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS
As a threshold matter, all defendants argue that the MDLEA is
unconstitutional because: (1) Congress’s power to define and punish felonies on
the high seas is limited to felonies bearing a “nexus” to the United States; (2) due
process prohibits the prosecution of foreign nationals for offenses bearing no
“nexus” to the United States; and (3) the MDLEA violates the Fifth and Sixth
24
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 25 of 97
Amendments by removing the determination of jurisdictional facts from the jury. 10
As the defendants concede, each of these constitutional arguments is
foreclosed by our binding precedent. First, this Court has held that the MDLEA is
a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Felonies Clause as applied to drug
trafficking crimes without a “nexus” to the United States. See Campbell, 743 F.3d
at 809-10; see also United States v. Valois, 915 F.3d 717, 722 (11th Cir.)
(following Campbell and reaching the same holding), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 263
(2019); United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182, 1187-88 (11th Cir. 2016)
(following Campbell and reaching the same holding); United States v. Estupinan,
453 F.3d 1336, 1338-39 (11th Cir. 2006).
Second, this Court has held that the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause
does not prohibit the trial and conviction of aliens captured on the high seas while
drug trafficking because the MDLEA provides clear notice that all nations prohibit
and condemn drug trafficking aboard stateless vessels on the high seas. See United
States v. Rendon, 354 F.3d 1320, 1326 (11th Cir. 2003); see also Valois, 915 F.3d
at 722 (following Rendon and reaching the same holding). The defendants’
MDLEA convictions thus do not violate their due process rights even if their
offenses lack a “nexus” to the United States. See, e.g., United States v.
10
We review de novo a district court’s interpretation of a statute and whether a statute is
constitutional. United States v. Valois, 915 F.3d 717, 722 n.1 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct.
263 (2019).
25
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 26 of 97
Wilchcombe, 838 F.3d 1179, 1186 (11th Cir. 2016); Campbell, 743 F.3d at 812.
Third, this Court has held that, because the MDLEA’s jurisdictional
requirement goes to the subject-matter jurisdiction of the courts and is not an
essential element of the MDLEA substantive offense, it does not have to be
submitted to the jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v.
Tinoco, 304 F.3d 1088, 1109-12 (11th Cir. 2002); see also Valois, 915 F.3d at 722
(following Tinoco and reaching the same holding); Cruickshank, 837 F.3d at 1192
(following Tinoco and reaching the same holding); Campbell, 743 F.3d at 809
(following Tinoco and Rendon and reaching the same holding); Rendon, 354 F.3d
at 1326-28 (following Tinoco and reaching the same holding).
The defendants also claim that: (1) the admission of a certification of the
U.S. Secretary of State to establish extraterritorial jurisdiction, especially where a
vessel is declared “stateless,” violates the Confrontation Clause and constitutes
inadmissible hearsay; and (2) the certification procedure as to the jurisdictional
element violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by allowing an
act of foreign omission to substitute for the government’s burden of proof on a
“material element.” See 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(2) (providing that, when a master or
individual in charge makes a claim of registry, the foreign nation may respond “by
radio, telephone, or similar oral or electronic means,” and the foreign nation’s
response “is proved conclusively by certification of the Secretary of State or the
26
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 27 of 97
Secretary’s designee”). Ultimately, the government never introduced a
certification from the Secretary of State, and thus we need not address these issues.
In any event, as the government points out, this Court has already held that
the introduction of a Secretary of State certification to establish extraterritorial
jurisdiction under the MDLEA does not violate the Confrontation Clause and does
not constitute inadmissible hearsay. See Campbell, 743 F.3d at 806-08 (“The
Confrontation Clause does not bar the admission of hearsay to make a pretrial
determination of jurisdiction when that hearsay does not pertain to an element of
the offense.”); Cruickshank, 837 F.3d at 1192 (“A United States Department of
State certification of jurisdiction under the MDLEA does not implicate the
Confrontation Clause because it does not affect the guilt or innocence of a
defendant.”); see also Valois, 915 F.3d at 722-23 (following Campbell and
Cruickshank and reaching the same holding). In Campbell, we determined that
because the stateless nature of the defendant’s vessel was not an element of his
MDLEA offense to be proved at trial, the admission of the Secretary of State
certification did not violate a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against
him. 743 F.3d at 806. 11
11
In his brief, Guagua-Alarcon argues that the MDLEA’s certification procedure also
violates separation of powers by unconstitutionally delegating the jurisdiction determination to
the executive branch, as opposed to the judiciary or the jury. Prior to the 1996 amendment to the
MDLEA, this Court held that the MDLEA’s certification procedure did not implicate separation
of powers. United States v. Rojas, 53 F.3d 1212, 1214-15 (11th Cir. 1995), superseded by
statute as recognized in Campbell, 743 F.3d at 803-04. We explained that the certification
27
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 28 of 97
Based on our binding precedent, we conclude that the defendants have not
shown that the MDLEA is unconstitutional. 12
VI. MDLEA SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION
Guagua-Alarcon and Palacios-Solis contend that, even if the MDLEA is
constitutional, the district court erred in concluding that its statutory requirements
for subject-matter jurisdiction were met.13 The government bears the burden of
establishing that the statutory requirements of MDLEA subject-matter jurisdiction
are met. Tinoco, 304 F.3d at 1114.
procedure “merely provide[d] a method by which the Executive Branch [could] evidence that it
ha[d] obtained a foreign nation’s consent to jurisdiction,” and that nothing in the procedure
“deprive[d] the court of its ability and obligation to determine whether the requirements of the
MDLEA ha[d] been met.” Id. at 1214-15 (explaining that the MDLEA left courts “free to
determine, and [t]o decide, whether a proffered certificate [was] sufficient evidence of
jurisdiction”).
While we have not directly addressed in a published case whether the revised MDLEA
statute’s certification procedure implicates separation of powers, we have stated that “courts
must still determine whether the MDLEA’s jurisdictional requirements have been met,”
regardless of the MDLEA assigning conclusive proof to a certification provided by the Secretary
of State or designee. Wilchcombe, 838 F.3d at 1186-88; accord United States v. Mejia, 734 F.
App’x 731, 734-35 (11th Cir.) (unpublished), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 593 (2018) (rejecting, in
dicta, the defendant’s separation of powers challenge under Rojas and Wilchcombe and
concluding that “nothing in [§ 70502(d)(2)] deprives the district court of its power to determine
whether the MDLEA’s jurisdictional requirements have been met”). Ultimately, because the
district court did not rely on a Secretary of State certification in finding that the defendants’
vessel was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, we need not rule on Guagua-Alarcon’s
separation of powers claim.
12
In a letter notice of supplemental authority, Palacios-Solis argues that the MDLEA is
void for vagueness. Because Palacios-Solis failed to raise this issue at all in his brief, he has
abandoned it. See United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273, 1283 n.8 (11th Cir. 2003).
13
We review de novo a district court’s interpretation and application of statutory
provisions regarding whether the district court has subject-matter jurisdiction. Tinoco, 304 F.3d
at 1114. However, we review for clear error the district court’s factual findings with respect to
jurisdiction. Id.
28
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 29 of 97
As noted above, a vessel is covered by the MDLEA if it is “subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States.” 46 U.S.C. § 70503(e)(1). Here, the government
asserted subject-matter jurisdiction under 46 U.S.C. § 70502(c)(1)(A): that the
vessel was “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” because it was “a
vessel without nationality.” In § 70502(d)(1), the MDLEA defines “a vessel
without nationality” as including each of the following three statutory options:
(A) a vessel aboard which the master or individual in charge makes a
claim of registry that is denied by the nation whose registry is
claimed;
(B) a vessel aboard which the master or individual in charge fails, on
request of an officer of the United States authorized to enforce
applicable provisions of United States law, to make a claim of
nationality or registry for that vessel; and
(C) a vessel aboard which the master or individual in charge makes a
claim of registry and for which the claimed nation of registry does
not affirmatively and unequivocally assert that the vessel is of its
nationality.
Id. § 70502(d)(1)(A)-(C). From the outset, the government invoked jurisdiction
over the defendants’ vessel under § 70502(d)(1)(B), based on the defendants’
failure to make a claim of nationality for the vessel.
Based on the record evidence, we conclude that the government established
that the defendants’ vessel was a “vessel without nationality” under the
§ 70502(d)(1)(B) definition and was thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States under § 70502(c)(1)(A). At trial, the Coast Guard boarding team members
29
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 30 of 97
testified that they asked the defendants to identify the master of the vessel and in
response the defendants pointed at each other but no one identified himself as the
master.
The LRI boarding team then also asked the defendants individually if
anyone wished to make a claim of nationality for the vessel, but no one
responded.14 Despite being given two opportunities, the defendants did not
produce any nationality documents, did not fly any nation’s flags, and did not
make any verbal claim of nationality or registry. Id. § 70502(e)(1)-(3).
We recognize that, on appeal, Guagua-Alarcon alleges that the defendants
verbally claimed Ecuadorian nationality for the vessel, that the Ecuadorian
government was unable to confirm the claim, and that, without a Secretary of State
certification, the Coast Guard improperly assumed that the vessel was stateless,
seized the defendants, and destroyed the vessel. The record evidence, however,
does not show that any defendant claimed a nationality in response to the LRI
boarding team’s questions. Rather, the record shows that the LRI boarding team
asked the defendants individually if anyone wished to make a claim of nationality
for the vessel and the defendants did not respond. Because the defendants made no
14
We recognize that the LRI boarding team did not also ask who was “the individual in
charge,” but the team’s questions were nevertheless sufficient because they did ask all
defendants if anyone wished to make a claim of nationality for the vessel. As such, any
individual who possessed the authority to make a claim of registry or nationality for the vessel
was given the opportunity to do so at the request of a duly authorized officer. See 46 U.S.C.
§ 70502(d)(1)(B).
30
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 31 of 97
claim of nationality, the statelessness of their vessel is clear under subsection
(d)(1)(B), and a Secretary of State certification was unnecessary. Id.
§ 70502(d)(1)(B), (d)(2).15
We do acknowledge that the Coast Guard learned that the vessel’s last port
of call was Ecuador, found the vessel’s Ecuadorian maker’s mark, and took an
additional step beyond its statutory obligation when it contacted Ecuador to receive
its statement of no objection. This courtesy call, however, did not create a
nationality claim on behalf of the defendants and their vessel where no master
presented himself or actively made a claim of nationality. See United States v.
Obando, 891 F.3d 929, 933, 938 (11th Cir. 2018) (explaining that, because no crew
member made a claim of nationality for their vessel, their vessel was “without
nationality” under § 70502(d)(1)(B) even though the Coast Guard “out of an
abundance of caution” did more than what was required by the MDLEA by
contacting the Ecuadorian government when the vessel’s master indicated that a
painted flag on the vessel’s hull was Ecuadorian); United States v. Hernandez, 864
F.3d 1292, 1304 (11th Cir. 2017) (recognizing that, once “the statutory
requirements for MDLEA prosecution in U.S. courts have been met . . . any further
15
Even so, the defendants’ claim that the government must produce a certification when
subject-matter jurisdiction is based on subsections (d)(1)(A) or (C) is unsupported by the
language of subsection (d)(2). While a certification provides conclusive proof of the foreign
nation’s response, the subsection does not state that the response cannot be proven by other
means. See 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(2).
31
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 32 of 97
jurisdictional complaint over that U.S. prosecution is to be handled by the
executive branch, nation-to-nation, in the international arena”). Rather, the vessel
remained stateless under § 70502(d)(1)(B).
It also is of no matter that the Coast Guard takes the last port of call as the
nationality of the vessel and contacts that corresponding government when no
claim is made. Whatever the foreign government’s response (or non-response), the
Coast Guard’s taking of that additional step does not void a statelessness finding
under §§ 70502(c)(1)(A) and 70502(d)(1)(B).
Consequently, the defendants’ vessel was a “vessel without nationality,” 46
U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1), and thus a “vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States,” id. § 70502(c)(1)(A), and therefore a “covered vessel,” id. § 70503(e)(1),
to which the MDLEA’s criminal prohibition against possessing a controlled
substance with distributary intent extends, id. § 70503(a)(1). The district court
properly exercised jurisdiction over the defendants and their offenses under the
MDLEA.
VII. DELAY IN GUAGUA-ALARCON’S PRESENTMENT
For the first time on appeal, Guagua-Alarcon argues that his convictions
should be vacated because the government deliberately and tactically took seven
weeks in order to transport him to Florida—rather than bringing him promptly
before a magistrate judge in California, the closest U.S. state—for a probable cause
32
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 33 of 97
determination.16 He asserts that the government purposely delayed his presentment
to a magistrate judge in order to forum shop because federal courts in California
require the government to prove a U.S. “nexus” to establish subject-matter
jurisdiction, whereas federal courts in Florida do not.
Nonetheless, Guagua-Alarcon concedes that we should review his delay
challenge for plain error since he raises it for the first time on appeal. Under the
plain-error standard, we will vacate a judgment only if there is (1) an error, (2) that
is plain, and the error both (3) affected the defendant’s substantial rights, and
(4) seriously affected the fairness of the judicial proceedings. United States v.
Ramirez-Flores, 743 F.3d 816, 822 (11th Cir. 2014); United States v. Hernandez,
906 F.3d 1367, 1370 (11th Cir. 2018). A defendant cannot prevail on plain-error
review “where there is no precedent from the Supreme Court or this Court directly
resolving” the issue in favor of the defendant. United States v. Lange, 862 F.3d
1290, 1296 (11th Cir. 2017) (quotation marks omitted).
As a preliminary matter, we note that the MDLEA does not prohibit the
government from taking offenders to Florida rather than California. A person
violating the MDLEA “may be tried in any district,” “if the offense was begun or
committed upon the high seas,” as was the case here. 46 U.S.C. § 70504(b)(2); see
also 18 U.S.C. § 3238 (assigning jurisdiction over all offenses committed upon the
16
Only Guagua-Alarcon makes this delay claim on appeal.
33
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 34 of 97
high seas to the district in which the offender is arrested or is first brought).
Accordingly, the issue here is not where the defendant was taken, but why it took
the government 49 days to present the defendant arrested outside the United States
before a magistrate judge in the United States for a probable cause hearing.
In this regard, Rule 5(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
expressly provides that “[a] person making an arrest outside the United States must
take the defendant without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge, unless a
statute provides otherwise.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(a)(1)(B) (emphasis added). In
Mallory v. United States, the Supreme Court indicated that the purpose of Rule
5(a) is to prevent oppressive police interrogations and other “third-degree” tactics
before bringing the accused in front of an officer of the court; the remedy was the
exclusion of evidence which was gained during the delay by the use of such tactics.
354 U.S. 449, 451-54, 77 S. Ct. 1356, 1357-59 (1957); see McNabb v. United
States, 318 U.S. 332, 345, 63 S. Ct. 608, 615 (1943) (“[T]o permit such evidence to
be made the basis of a conviction in the federal courts would stultify the policy
which Congress has enacted into law.”); 17 United States v. Mendoza, 473 F.2d 697,
17
The McNabb-Mallory exclusionary rule—under which an arrestee’s confession,
whether voluntary or involuntary, is inadmissible if given after an unreasonable delay in bringing
him before a judge—was superseded in part by 18 U.S.C. § 3501, which immunizes voluntary
confessions given within six hours of a suspect’s arrest. See Corley v. United States, 556 U.S.
303, 306-11, 322, 129 S. Ct. 1558, 1562-64, 1571 (2009). The Supreme Court in Corley held
that Congress intended merely to modify McNabb-Mallory’s exclusionary rule, rather than
supplant it, when it enacted § 3501. Id. at 306, 322, 129 S. Ct. at 1562, 1571.
34
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 35 of 97
702 (5th Cir. 1973) (“A violation of [Rule 5(a)] renders the evidence obtained per
se inadmissible.”).18
In United States v. Purvis, this Court expressly addressed “unnecessary
delay” under Rule 5(a)(1)(B). 768 F.2d 1237, 1238-39 (11th Cir. 1985). This
Court held that various factors are considered in determining whether a delay was
unnecessary, including: (1) the distance between the location of the defendant’s
arrest in international waters and the U.S. port he was brought to; (2) the time
between the defendant’s arrival at the U.S. port and his presentment to the
magistrate judge; (3) any evidence of mistreatment or improper interrogation
during the delay; and (4) any reason for the delay, like exigent circumstances or
emergencies. Id.
Here, the timeline and location of defendant Guagua-Alarcon’s arrest are not
disputed. Guagua-Alarcon was brought onboard the Hamilton cutter on October
25, and the cutter was located 200-plus miles off the coast of Guatemala/El
Salvador. On December 12, Guagua-Alarcon made his first entry into the Key
West port. On December 13, he was presented for his initial appearance before a
magistrate judge. There was a 49-day delay between Guagua-Alarcon’s arrest and
his presentment.
18
This Court adopted as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions prior to October 1,
1981. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
35
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 36 of 97
As to the first Purvis factor, the distance between the arrest location outside
the United States and Key West was quite lengthy. As to the second Purvis factor,
Guagua-Alarcon arrived at Key West on December 12 and was presented
immediately to the magistrate judge on December 13. As to the third Purvis factor,
there is no claim that Guagua-Alarcon was mistreated or improperly interrogated
during transit. Thus, the first, second, and third Purvis factors arguably help the
government.
As to the fourth Purvis factor, the problem for Guagua-Alarcon is that he did
not raise this delay issue below, much less claim the delay was “unnecessary,” and
thus he has presented no evidence (at trial or a pre-trial hearing) indicating the
reasons or circumstances behind the delay. Guagua-Alarcon’s allegation that the
government deliberately and tactically delayed in order to forum shop is pure
speculation and unsupported by any record evidence. 19 By failing to develop the
factual predicates for his claim in the district court, Guagua-Alarcon has failed to
carry his burden to show the particular delay here was “unnecessary” and thus a
Rule 5(a) violation. 20
19
Guagua-Alarcon argues that California was closer to the location of his arrest than
Florida. There is no record evidence regarding the distances between Guagua-Alarcon’s arrest
and those U.S. states. Because of the Panama Canal route, geographical calculations are needed
to reveal the distances.
20
The government (without evidence too) asserts that the delay could have been caused
by any number of valid reasons, such as the Coast Guard opting to continue their normal law
enforcement patrolling activities through the conclusion of their mission, “diplomatic wrangling”
36
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 37 of 97
Given this problem, Guagua-Alarcon argues that we should remand for an
evidentiary hearing, but such further hearing and fact finding at this point in the
proceedings would undermine the plain-error doctrine. See United States v.
Bonavia, 927 F.2d 565, 570 (11th Cir. 1991) (“We note that the plain error
doctrine should be applied sparingly lest the contemporaneous objection rule,
requiring timely objections to preserve issues for appeal, be swallowed by the plain
error exception.”).
In any event, Guagua-Alarcon points to no controlling precedent from the
Supreme Court or the Eleventh Circuit establishing that a 49-day delay, no matter
the circumstances of this interdiction on the high seas 200 miles off the coast of
Guatemala/El Salvador, presumptively constitutes “unnecessary delay” under Rule
5(a). In other MDLEA cases, this Court has concluded that delays, albeit shorter
ones, were reasonable. See Purvis, 768 F.2d at 1239 (holding that a five-day delay
was reasonable for defendants arrested on the high seas approximately 350 miles
from Key West); United States v. Odom, 526 F.2d 339, 342-43 (5th Cir. 1976)
(holding that a five-day delay was reasonable for a defendant arrested on the high
between the U.S. and Ecuadorian governments, a mechanical mishap, or some other emergency.
In short, both Guagua-Alarcon and the government speculate as to the cause of the delay.
However, on appeal, Guagua-Alarcon has moved to vacate his convictions based on
“unnecessary delay” under Rule 5(a), and thus he as movant has the burden to establish the delay
was “unnecessary.” Yet, he has not developed the required factual predicate to do so. To be
clear, our ruling is based on the lack of evidence or factual predicate for the “unnecessary delay”
claim, not on the merits of the claim.
37
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 38 of 97
seas approximately 200 miles from the United States); see also United States v.
Castillo, 899 F.3d 1208, 1217-18 (11th Cir. 2018) (Martin, J., concurring)
(discussing Rule 5(a)(1)(B) and determining that a 19-day delay was reasonable for
a defendant arrested off of “[t]he Pacific coast of Guatemala,” “approximately
1,000 miles from the port of Miami”), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 796 (2019).21 No
case, however, has addressed a 49-day delay or held what circumstances or reasons
would make such a delay unnecessary. Because no Supreme Court or Eleventh
Circuit precedent has ruled whether a delay in presentment similar to Guagua-
Alarcon’s was “unnecessary delay” under Rule 5(a), Guagua-Alarcon has failed to
show plain error.
Despite Rule 5(a), Guagua-Alarcon asserts that his case is controlled by the
constitutional, 48-hour rule established by the Supreme Court in County of
Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 111 S. Ct. 1661 (1991). Prior to
McLaughlin, the Supreme Court held that “the Fourth Amendment requires a
timely judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to detention.”
Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 126, 95 S. Ct. 854, 869 (1975). Then, in
McLaughlin, the Supreme Court ruled that “a jurisdiction that provides judicial
determinations of probable cause within 48 hours of arrest will, as a general matter,
21
The majority in Castillo held that the defendant’s guilty plea waived his right to
challenge his detention and did not address the Rule 5(a) issue. 899 F.3d at 1214-15.
38
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 39 of 97
comply with the promptness requirements of Gerstein.” McLaughlin, 500 U.S. at
56, 111 S. Ct. at 1670.
Guagua-Alarcon contends McLaughlin established a per se 48-hour outer-
limit rule and thus his detention violated the Fourth Amendment. However,
McLaughlin did not establish 48 hours as a per se outer limit. See id. at 56, 111 S.
Ct. at 1670 (“[W]e hesitate to announce that the Constitution compels a specific
time limit.”). Rather, in McLaughlin, the Supreme Court held that, generally,
when a probable cause determination does not happen within 48 hours, “the burden
shifts to the government to demonstrate the existence of a bona fide emergency or
other extraordinary circumstance.” Id. at 47, 56, 111 S. Ct. at 1665, 1670; Powell
v. Nevada, 511 U.S. 79, 83-84, 114 S. Ct. 1280, 1283 (1994). Again, because
Guagua-Alarcon did not raise his McLaughlin claim in the district court, we must
review his McLaughlin claim too for plain error.
Here, Guagua-Alarcon has not shown error, much less plain error, because
the Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches and seizures (arrests) by the
United States of a non-citizen/non-resident alien arrested in international waters or
a foreign country. See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 274-75,
110 S. Ct. 1056, 1066 (1990) (holding that the Fourth Amendment protects only
“the people” of the United States and has no application to search-and-seizure
challenges where the challenger is a non-citizen/non-resident alien with no
39
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 40 of 97
voluntary attachment to the United States and the area searched is located outside
of the United States);22 United States v. Vilches-Navarrete, 523 F.3d 1, 13 (1st Cir.
2008) (applying Verdugo-Urquidez and holding the district court properly
dismissed the MDLEA defendant’s Fourth Amendment claim regarding the U.S.
Coast Guard’s actions because the defendant was Chilean, he was not residing in
the United States, and the Coast Guard’s actions occurred in international waters);
United States v. Bravo, 489 F.3d 1, 8-9 (1st Cir. 2007) (holding the district court
properly denied the MDLEA defendants’ motion to suppress evidence seized from
their vessel because, under Verdugo-Urquidez, “the Fourth Amendment does not
apply to activities of the United States against aliens in international waters”);
United States v. Zakharov, 468 F.3d 1171, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that,
because the alleged unconstitutional delay took place outside of the United States
in international waters and there was no suggestion that Zakharov, as neither a U.S.
citizen nor U.S. resident, had any substantial connection to this country, the Fourth
Amendment did not apply to him and his claim); see also United States v. Rojas,
812 F.3d 382, 388, 397-98 (5th Cir. 2016) (holding that, under Verdugo-Urquidez,
the defendants—Colombian citizens and residents—had no Fourth Amendment
22
The Supreme Court explained in Verdugo-Urquidez that, “[t]here is likewise no
indication that the Fourth Amendment was understood by contemporaries of the Framers to
apply to activities of the United States directed against aliens in foreign territory or in
international waters.” 494 U.S. at 267, 110 S. Ct. at 1061. Rather, “aliens receive constitutional
protections when they have come within the territory of the United States and developed
substantial connections with this country.” Id. at 271, 110 S. Ct. at 1064.
40
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 41 of 97
protections to challenge the admission of wiretap conversations, which were
recorded in Colombia, in their drug trafficking prosecutions under 21 U.S.C.
§§ 959, 960, and 963).
While not in a drug trafficking case under the MDLEA, this Court similarly
has applied the Verdugo-Urquidez rule in drug trafficking cases brought against
non-resident aliens. See, e.g., United States v. Valencia-Trujillo, 573 F.3d 1171,
1173, 1182-83 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that, under Verdugo-Urquidez, “[t]he
Fourth Amendment . . . does not apply to actions against foreign citizens on
foreign soil” and thus a non-resident alien charged with drug smuggling crimes
could not challenge on Fourth Amendment grounds the district court’s denial of an
evidentiary hearing in which he sought to invalidate his arrest and involuntary
extradition in Colombia);23 United States v. Emmanuel, 565 F.3d 1324, 1332 (11th
Cir. 2009) (holding, in a drug trafficking case, that “[t]he Fourth Amendment
exclusionary rule does not apply to the interception of wire communications in the
Bahamas of a Bahamian resident”).
In this drug trafficking case under the MDLEA, we too must follow
Verdugo-Urquidez and conclude that defendant Guagua-Alarcon, who is a non-
U.S. citizen and non-U.S. resident, and who has no significant connection to the
23
In Valencia-Trujillo, this Court added that “[t]he allegedly improper seizure of
Valencia-Trujillo occurred in Colombia,” and “[b]ecause there can be no violation of our Fourth
Amendment in that country, there can be no entitlement to a Franks hearing to establish that one
occurred there.” Id. at 1183.
41
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 42 of 97
United States, cannot challenge under the Fourth Amendment and McLaughlin the
Coast Guard’s conduct in taking 49 days on the high seas outside of the United
States to transport him to Florida for presentment to the magistrate judge. 24
Rather, the correct analytical framework for Guagua-Alarcon’s delay-in-
presentment challenge is under Rule 5(a) and the Purvis factors as outlined above.
Thus, Guagua-Alarcon has shown no plain error to establish his Fourth
Amendment and McLaughlin claims.25
VIII. DEFENDANTS’ POST-ARREST, PRE-MIRANDA SILENCE
Palacios-Solis argues that the district court erred in denying his motion in
limine to preclude the government from presenting evidence of the defendants’
post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence as “consciousness of guilt.”26
As Palacios-Solis concedes, this Court’s binding precedent forecloses his
24
Once Guagua-Alarcon was brought to Florida on December 12, he appeared before a
magistrate judge on December 13. The issue here is only about the Coast Guard’s conduct in
taking 49 days to transport Guagua-Alarcon to Florida (or, as Guagua-Alarcon alleges,
deliberately delaying his transit).
25
In his initial brief, Guagua-Alarcon stated that his remedy for the unreasonable delay in
presentment was to vacate his convictions. While we need not, and do not, reach this issue, we
note that federal courts have concluded that the remedy for a McLaughlin or Rule 5(a) delay-in-
presentment violation is suppression of the evidence obtained during the delay, not the vacatur of
a conviction. See Corley, 556 U.S. at 309, 129 S. Ct. at 1563 (explaining that, generally,
confessions made during periods of detention that violate the prompt presentment requirement of
Rule 5(a) are rendered inadmissible); Gerstein, 420 U.S. at 119, 95 S. Ct. at 865 (explaining the
“established rule that illegal arrest or detention does not void a subsequent conviction” and that
“a conviction will not be vacated on the ground that the defendant was detained pending trial
without a determination of probable cause”); Mendoza, 473 F.2d at 702.
26
We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Turner, 474
F.3d 1265, 1275 (11th Cir. 2007).
42
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 43 of 97
argument. Once a defendant is in custody and receives Miranda warnings, he
indisputably has a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. See Oregon v. Elstad,
470 U.S. 298, 304-05, 311, 105 S. Ct. 1285, 1290-91, 1294 (1985). Yet, the
Supreme Court has expressly held that the Fifth Amendment allows the use of a
defendant’s post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence to impeach the defendant. Brecht v.
Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 628, 113 S. Ct. 1710, 1716 (1993). This Court, in
United States v. Rivera, went one step further. 944 F.2d 1563, 1568 (11th Cir.
1991). In Rivera, this Court held that, in its case-in-chief, the government may use
a defendant’s post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence as direct evidence tending to prove
the defendant’s guilt. Id.
Palacios-Solis points out a circuit split on this issue. This Court has already
noted this circuit split in Wilchcombe and again upheld our precedent in Rivera.
Wilchcombe, 838 F.3d at 1190-91 (“Whatever the state of the law in other circuits,
in our circuit it was permissible for the government to comment on [the
defendant’s] silence.”). Given our precedent, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Palacios-Solis’s motion in limine on this basis.
IX. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
As to both counts, Cabezas-Montano and Palacio-Solis argue that there was
insufficient evidence to convict them of violating the MDLEA because the
government offered no evidence that they were the ones responsible for the drugs
43
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 44 of 97
the Coast Guard found floating in the Pacific Ocean two-and-a-half hours after the
helicopter initially spotted the target GFV’s passengers jettisoning packages. 27
To prove the existence of a conspiracy, “the government must establish that
an agreement existed between two or more persons and that the defendant
knowingly and voluntarily participated in it.” Tinoco, 304 F.3d at 1122 (quotation
marks omitted) (reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting conspiracy
and substantive MDLEA convictions). The government may meet its burden using
circumstantial evidence. Id. While a defendant’s presence is not determinative, it
is a material factor when weighing evidence of a conspiracy. Id. at 1122-23.
The government also may use circumstantial evidence to meet its burden of
proving possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. Id. A
defendant’s possession may be either actual or constructive. Id. A defendant
constructively possesses contraband when he exercises some measure of dominion
or control over it, either exclusively or in association with others. Id. Moreover,
we may infer a defendant’s intent to distribute from the large quantity of narcotics
seized. Id.
27
We review de novo whether the record contains sufficient evidence to support the jury’s
guilty verdict, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and resolving
all reasonable inferences and credibility evaluations in favor of the verdict. Tinoco, 304 F.3d at
1122. We will not overturn the jury’s verdict “unless no trier of fact could have found guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). The evidence need not “exclude
every reasonable hypothesis of innocence or be wholly inconsistent with every conclusion except
that of guilt, provided that a reasonable trier of fact could find that the evidence established guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).
44
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 45 of 97
As this Court has pointed out, “conspiracy and possession cases involving
narcotics-laden vessels present repetitive fact patterns.” Id. In Tinoco, we
identified these factors to consider when determining whether a jury reasonably
could conclude that a defendant found on the target vessel was guilty of the drug
conspiracy and possession charges:
(1) probable length of the voyage, (2) the size of the contraband
shipment, (3) the necessarily close relationship between captain and
crew, (4) the obviousness of the contraband, and (5) other factors, such
as suspicious behavior or diversionary maneuvers before apprehension,
attempts to flee, inculpatory statements made after apprehension,
witnessed participation of the crew, and the absence of supplies or
equipment necessary to the vessel’s intended use.
Id. Once the government shows that a large quantity of contraband was present on
a vessel, its “remaining burden of showing that the crew knowingly participated in
the drug trafficking operation is ‘relatively light,’” and can be met by proving any
one of the other Tinoco factors. Id.
In this case, the jury had ample evidence demonstrating that the defendants
were guilty of the MDLEA conspiracy and possession crimes. First, the evidence
showed that the defendants’ vessel was the same GFV the Coast Guard was
targeting on the night of October 24. Multiple units of the Hamilton cutter
monitored and chased the target GFV for almost three hours, stayed in contact with
each other and shared coordinate locations throughout this time period, and only
lost its visual of the GFV for 31 minutes. The target GFV was a 30-to-35-foot
45
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 46 of 97
high-speed vessel with two outboard engines carrying three passengers, and the
three defendants and their vessel matched that description. The Hamilton crew
found the defendants’ vessel in the vicinity it had been searching for and chasing
the GFV. And, importantly, the Hamilton crew neither saw nor heard of any other
vessels in the vicinity during the entirety of the interdiction.
Additionally, the results of the Coast Guard’s searches of the defendants’
vessel and the GPS trackers matched their observations during the chase of the
GFV. The FLIR video showed that the GFV’s left side engine was emitting less
heat than the right side engine, which was consistent with the LRI boarding team’s
discovery of a wet shirt covering the left engine. The buoys and black line
recovered from the water matched those discovered on the defendants’ vessel and
claimed by Palacios-Solis. And the trajectories of the GPS trackers on the
recovered bales were consistent with the Hamilton cutter’s and helicopter’s
coordinate range data for the target GFV as well as the coordinate document found
on the defendants’ vessel.
Moreover, the defendants’ story that they had gone on a four-day fishing trip
but had been lost or adrift at sea for about 30 days was contradicted by substantial
evidence: (1) the defendants’ vessel was a GFV and not a fishing boat; (2) the
GFV’s bottom side was clean and had no growth; (3) the defendants had no bait,
fish, or useable fishing lines onboard; (4) they had a substantial amount of fuel for
46
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 47 of 97
a short fishing trip; (5) they had large quantities of food and liquids, which
appeared to be fresh; (6) they did not seem happy to see the Coast Guard after
being adrift for about 30 days; (7) they needed no medical care and showed no
signs of lethargy, extended exposure to the elements, or malnutrition; and (8) a
drift analysis showed that their story was impossible based on their claimed
starting point, the weather and currents, and the coordinate location of the
interdiction.
In short, while the Hamilton crew lost a visual of the GFV for 31 minutes,
there was a wealth of other evidence establishing that the defendants’ later-
captured vessel was the observed target GFV which was jettisoning the bales of
cocaine.
Second, the evidence also showed that the recovered bales of cocaine were
the same ones that were jettisoned by the target GFV, which was the defendants’
vessel. While aboard the target GFV, the defendants jettisoned numerous packages
overboard during the chase and then the helicopter crew communicated the
location of the jettisoned packages by using chemical lights and relaying the
coordinate position. Although the OTH crew did not find the jettisoned packages
at the specified location, the OTH crew recovered one package of cocaine and a
buoy with a black line floating in the water while en route to the location where the
defendants’ vessel had been visually reacquired. Then, the OTH crew recovered
47
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 48 of 97
24 more bales of cocaine and buoys equipped with GPS trackers after conducting a
drift analysis to calculate the likely location of the jettisoned packages given the
current and wind movement. And, according to the Coast Guard maritime expert’s
testimony, the southward location where the Hamilton crew searched for and
recovered the bales was consistent with information regarding the direction of the
GFV.
Once again, the results of the vessel and GPS-tracker searches matched the
Hamilton crew’s observations during the chase of the GFV. The buoys, black line,
and brown packing tape wrapped around the cocaine bales matched those
discovered on the defendants’ vessel. The GPS trackers’ trajectories on the
recovered bales were consistent with the coordinate range data for the GFV, the
coordinate document found on the defendants’ vessel, and Palacios-Solis’s
statement to the LRI boarding team that the defendants’ last port of call was in
Ecuador. The GPS trackers also showed the sudden stopping and slow drifting of
the bales, which is consistent with the defendants jettisoning the bales off the GFV
and the bales drifting in the water into the area where the Coast Guard eventually
found them.
Still yet, other evidence established the link between the defendants and the
recovered bales of drugs. By the time the LRI boarding team boarded the
defendants’ vessel, it had been wiped down almost entirely with fuel, so as to hide
48
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 49 of 97
any remaining evidence of drugs. The defendants appeared visibly concerned
when the LRI boarding team began the swabbing process, which revealed that one
of the defendants and the GFV’s bow and tiller recently were in contact with trace
amounts of cocaine. And, as discussed earlier, the defendants’ fishing story was
contradicted by substantial evidence.
Although the Hamilton crew discovered the bales of cocaine in areas outside
of the immediate location where they reacquired sight of the GFV and where they
dropped chemical lights, there was plenty of other evidence establishing that these
were the packages that the defendants jettisoned off their vessel. In sum, sufficient
evidence established that the defendants’ vessel was the target GFV and that the
recovered cocaine bales were the ones that had been jettisoned from the GFV.
With that established, we now turn to the Tinoco factors and why a jury
could reasonably find the defendants were involved in a conspiracy to traffic and
possess the drugs on their vessel. The size of the contraband shipment is relevant
to show: (1) the passengers’ knowledge of the contraband’s presence on the vessel;
(2) the passengers’ intent to use the contraband for large-scale distribution, rather
than for personal use; and (3) participation in the drug trafficking conspiracy by all
the vessel’s passengers. See Tinoco, 304 F.3d at 1121, 1123 (“The value of the
cocaine also was relevant to showing that the cocaine most likely was not for
personal consumption, but for large-scale distribution, which went to whether the
49
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 50 of 97
appellants acted with an intent to distribute the cocaine.”); United States v. Cruz-
Valdez, 773 F.2d 1541, 1546 (11th Cir. 1985) (explaining that large drug quantities
on a small vessel “make it most unlikely that the persons on board will be ignorant
of its presence” and that “it is highly improbable that drug smugglers would allow
an outsider on board a vessel filled with millions of dollars worth of contraband”).
Indeed, the packages jettisoned from the defendants’ vessel contained a large
amount of cocaine—25 total bales of cocaine collectively weighing 614 kilograms
and worth $10 million wholesale. See United States v. Hernandez, 864 F.3d 1292,
1304-05 (11th Cir. 2017) (stating that 290 kilograms of cocaine within ten
previously jettisoned bales indicated cocaine smuggling). Although the
defendants’ vessel was carrying a large cocaine shipment, only three crew
members were aboard. See Tinoco, 304 F.3d at 1123 (“The presence of a large
amount of contraband on a small vessel with a small crew evidenced the
defendants’ knowing participation in the drug smuggling operation.”). And, at
trial, Palacios-Solis testified and eventually admitted that he was the captain
aboard a small 30-to-35-foot vessel for possibly up to ten days, given the GPS
tracker evidence. Given the small size of the boat, the few number of crew
members, and the large amount of cocaine, that evidence made it reasonable for the
jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants knew of and agreed to
participate in the charged drug conspiracy and possession crimes.
50
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 51 of 97
Yet, the government also proved three other Tinoco factors indicative of
guilt of the charged crimes: (1) suspicious behavior or diversionary maneuvers
before apprehension; (2) attempts to flee; and (3) absence of equipment necessary
to the vessel’s purported use as a fishing boat. The evidence established that the
defendants led the Hamilton crew on a two-hour chase, despite the crew’s repeated
orders and warning shots to signal the vessel to heave to. The defendants covered
at least one of their engines to reduce its visibility, restarted their engines and
began moving each time the Coast Guard reacquired them, and engaged in evasive,
zig-zag movements. The defendants also wiped down their vessel with fuel before
the boarding crew came aboard. And, other than some fishing hooks and knives,
there were no usable fishing supplies or equipment aboard.
Ultimately, a jury reasonably could conclude that the defendants were guilty
of the drug conspiracy and possession charges given their presence and close
proximity on the small GFV for several days, the large amount and high monetary
value of the cocaine, their diversionary maneuvers and attempts to flee, and the
absence of necessary fishing supplies on their vessel. Id. at 1122-23. We thus
conclude sufficient evidence supported the defendants’ convictions.28
X. PALACIOS-SOLIS’S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL
28
We recognize that the government stresses that the defendants did not verbally respond
when asked the right-of-visit questions and pointed at each other when asked to identify the
master of the vessel. However, we need not rely on that evidence to uphold the jury’s verdict
here.
51
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 52 of 97
Palacios-Solis argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying
his motion for a mistrial based on the government’s alleged Brady violation for not
disclosing the CIC’s FLIR video on the Hamilton cutter and the fact that Petty
Officer Tetzlaff observed critical events as recorded by that video. 29 Palacios-Solis
takes issue with Officer Tetzlaff’s testimony that he observed on the video that one
of the defendants “looked . . . very frantic trying to get the engine fixed.”
Palacios-Solis has not shown that the prosecution’s failure to disclose this
evidence violated his rights under Brady. The Supreme Court in Brady held that
“the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon
request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to
punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” 373
U.S. at 87, 83 S. Ct. at 1196-97 (emphasis added). Here, Palacios-Solis has not
shown that the subject evidence was “favorable” or exculpatory, but concedes that
Officer Tetzlaff’s testimony about the contents of the CIC’s FLIR video was
“highly-incriminating” and “contradicted” the defendants’ innocent version of
events. Palacios-Solis made the same concession when arguing his motion for a
mistrial before the district court. Because the purportedly suppressed evidence is
neither favorable nor material, Palacios-Solis failed to show a Brady violation and
29
“We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for a mistrial.” Valois, 915
F.3d at 723 n.2.
52
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 53 of 97
the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial.
XI. SENTENCING
A. Defendants’ Presentence Investigation Reports (“PSR”)
Cabezas-Montano’s and Guagua-Alarcon’s PSRs assigned them a base
offense level of 38 for Counts 1 and 2, under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(5) and (c)(1),
because they were responsible for transporting 614 kilograms of cocaine. 30 The
PSRs did not apply either an aggravating or mitigating role adjustment. Their total
offense level of 38 and criminal history category of I yielded an advisory
guidelines range of 235 to 293 months’ imprisonment for both counts.
Palacios-Solis’s PSR assigned him a base offense level of 38 for Counts 1
and 2, under § 2D1.1(a)(5) and (c)(1), because he too was responsible for
transporting 614 kilograms of cocaine.31 The PSR added a two-level increase for
his role as the captain of the vessel and a two-level increase for obstruction of
justice by giving false trial testimony about being adrift for about 30 days. The
PSR pointed out that Palacios-Solis admitted at trial to being the captain of the
vessel. Palacios-Solis’s total offense level of 42 and criminal history category of I
yielded an advisory guidelines range of 360 months’ to life imprisonment for both
30
The base-offense-level paragraph in Guagua-Alarcon’s PSR actually states that he was
held accountable for “612 kilograms” of cocaine, but this appears to be a typo, as the quantity of
cocaine is otherwise documented as “614 kilograms” elsewhere in his PSR.
31
The base-offense-level paragraph of Palacios-Solis’s PSR includes the same “612
kilogram” typo as in Guagua-Alarcon’s PSR.
53
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 54 of 97
counts.
B. Defendants’ Objections and Motions for Downward Variance
All defendants filed written objections to their PSRs and then made or
expanded upon their objections at the sentencing hearing. All defendants objected
to not receiving a two-level minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b).
Palacios-Solis also objected: (1) to the PSR’s factual basis, maintaining his
innocence; (2) to his two-level aggravating role increase under U.S.S.G.
§ 2D1.1(b)(3)(C); (3) to his not receiving a two-level reduction under the “safety
valve” provision of U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2; and (4) to his receiving the two-level
increase for obstruction of justice.
All defendants also moved for downward variances pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a), requesting the 120-month statutory mandatory minimum sentence.
Guagua-Alarcon highlighted his poverty, poor education, physical disabilities,
familial relationships in Ecuador, efforts to support his family, and minor role in
the offense. Cabezas-Montano emphasized his age, lack of prior crimes, minor
role in the offense, familial relationships in Colombia, and efforts to support his
family. Palacios-Solis stressed his “background and characteristics” and the
severity of a 360-month sentence. Each defendant made only $80 to $100 a week,
lived in poverty, was poorly educated, and had family members in their home
countries who depended upon them financially.
54
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 55 of 97
C. Government’s Response
In response, the government argued that none of the defendants should
receive a minor-role reduction because: (1) they were held accountable only for the
quantity of cocaine they jettisoned from their vessel; (2) they jettisoned a huge
quantity of cocaine; (3) they each played a vital role in the drug trafficking
conspiracy and in attempting to destroy the evidence of their crimes; and (4) their
transportation of such a large cocaine shipment was an essential component of
their drug trafficking. The government emphasized that Palacios-Solis’s role
increase applied given his admission that he was the captain. The government
stressed that Palacios-Solis was not eligible for the safety-valve relief because he
had not provided the government with any information about his offenses and there
was no precedent supporting his Fifth Amendment challenge to that requirement
for safety-valve relief. And his false trial testimony warranted his obstruction-of-
justice increase.
D. Sentencing Hearing
The defendants were sentenced together at a combined hearing. The district
court addressed the defendants’ arguments as to their alleged minor roles, which
largely overlapped with their arguments for downward variances. Cabezas-
Montano and his counsel led these arguments, which were adopted and briefly
55
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 56 of 97
expanded upon by Palacios-Solis’s and Guagua-Alarcon’s attorneys.
The defendants argued that they were the “little guys” in the drug trafficking
operation, as they did not own the drugs, package the drugs, make arrangements
for the drugs’ transportation or receipt, or make “millions and millions” of dollars
off of the drugs’ distribution. For example, Cabezas-Montano, as a “little guy,”
lived in poverty in his home country, only made up to a hundred dollars a week as
a career fisherman, and stood to make more money in one week than he’d make in
20 years if he succeeded in this drug trafficking trip. While the defendants were
not minor participants with respect to the transported drugs in this case, they were
“very small fish in a very large [drug trafficking] pond” with respect to “the real
world.” While the “little fish” risked long sentences if they got caught, the “big
guys” would continue to run the operation and make millions. The defendants also
had no decision-making authority within the conspiracy. The defendants did not
plan or organize the drug operation but only transported the drugs. They pointed
out that the Guidelines reference transporting drugs as an example of conduct that
could be eligible for a minor-role reduction. 32
The government reiterated that the defendants were not entitled to a minor-
role reduction because they were entrusted with a large quantity of cocaine, they
32
This is a compilation of the defendants’ arguments in their written objections and at
sentencing.
56
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 57 of 97
evaded the Coast Guard and created a substantial risk to those involved in the
interdiction efforts, and they acted together in navigating the vessel and throwing
the cocaine overboard.
The district court then engaged in a lengthy colloquy with Cabezas-
Montano’s counsel regarding his argument that the defendants were just the “little
guys” in a larger operation. The district court asked how it would know whether a
defendant aboard a vessel was a “little guy” or was a “big guy” representing the
owners of the cocaine. Cabezas-Montano stated that those facts would be based on
the government’s intelligence on particular trafficking organizations or networks,
investigation into the particular case, or cooperation of the defendants. Cabezas-
Montano argued that the government presented no evidence indicating he was
anything other than what he said: a low-income fisherman.
The district court also inquired about deterrence and asked about how much
couriers typically make for successfully transporting cocaine. Cabezas-Montano
stated that a typical courier could make $20,000 for transporting a load of cocaine,
which was a lot more than he made per week back at home. The district court was
concerned that an individual like Cabezas-Montano would not be deterred from
attempting a successful run given the possible reward. Cabezas-Montano
responded that he already was deterred by the remorse of being separated from his
family and the guilt of no longer being able to provide for them. He argued that
57
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 58 of 97
many people in his home country do not realize the risk they face by transporting
drugs and that general deterrence would be better served if he were able to return
home and relay what happened to him. Cabezas-Montano reiterated that 120
months was very severe and would be sufficient to deter him.
Ultimately, the district court was unpersuaded by the defendants’ deterrence
argument given the number of individuals who make similar trips, some of which
are successful and report their successes to their villages. The district court
indicated that MDLEA penalties were significant partly because of the harm these
drug offenses wreak on our society. The district court concluded: (1) that
transportation was a critical role in the drug trafficking industry; (2) that
defendants are accountable for their role in the conspiracy that was charged, not in
a larger conspiracy that involved drug manufacturers or distributors somewhere
else; and (3) that each of the defendants was an essential member of this
conspiracy. The district court overruled the defendants’ minor-role objections.
After hearing from Cabezas-Montano’s counsel, the district court denied Cabezas-
Montano’s downward-variance request.
Palacios-Solis and his counsel went next. The district court overruled
Palacios-Solis’s objections to the PSR’s factual basis, noting that it had heard the
trial evidence and found that the evidence supported that factual basis. Palacios-
Solis again raised his mitigating-role objection, which the district court overruled
58
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 59 of 97
as well. Palacios-Solis then raised his objection to the denial of safety-valve relief.
Although claiming he met the first four requirements of the safety valve, Palacios-
Solis conceded that he did not meet the fifth requirement (to provide the
government with information about his offenses), but argued that the fifth
requirement violated his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth
Amendment. The district court observed that Palacios-Solis did not provide all he
knew about the case and lied about his role at trial and in any event controlling
precedent foreclosed his Fifth Amendment challenge. The district court overruled
the safety-valve objection.
Palacios-Solis also challenged his obstruction-of-justice increase and argued
he did not lie at trial. Overruling the objection, the district court found that
Palacios-Solis testified about being adrift for about 30 days, that the Coast Guard
expert testified that this story was physically impossible, and that there was plenty
of evidence that the defendants attempted to conceal and destroy evidence during
the chase.
Palacios-Solis also raised his request for a downward variance to the 120-
month statutory mandatory minimum sentence. The district court denied his
request. After ruling on each of Palacios-Solis’s PSR objections, the district court
found that his total offense level was 42, his criminal history category was I, and
his advisory guidelines range was 360 months to life.
59
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 60 of 97
Guagua-Alarcon and his counsel went last, but noted that his only remaining
objection was to not receiving the minor-role reduction, which the district court
overruled.33 The district court found that Guagua-Alarcon’s total offense level was
38, his criminal history category was I, and his advisory guidelines range was 235
to 293 months.
E. Counsel’s Final Sentencing Arguments
After the defendants’ personal allocutions, 34 their counsel presented
arguments for sentences well below the guidelines range. For example, the
defendants argued that a shorter term of U.S. imprisonment would better promote
general deterrence because they could go home and relay what happened. They
also argued that: (1) they came from poverty and had a poor education; (2) the
large drug quantity was irrelevant because they had no control over the amount
transported; (3) they would not do well in a U.S. prison as non-English speakers
with no family or support system here; and (4) a within-guidelines-range sentence
would be extreme and unwarranted. Cabeza-Montano’s counsel also stressed that,
33
At this juncture, Guagua-Alarcon did not mention his motion for a downward variance
but appeared to assume the district court had already denied his motion too when the district
court denied those of Cabezas-Montano and Palacios-Solis.
34
In allocution, Cabezas-Montano stated that he was concerned about his family’s welfare
and asked to be deported back to his home country. Palacios-Solis stressed that there was no
cocaine found on the defendants’ vessel, that they were asleep when the Coast Guard
apprehended them, and that he was concerned about his inability to provide for his family, and
he asked for mercy. Guagua-Alarcon maintained his innocence, denied being involved with
cocaine, and asked to be deported back to his home country to be with his family.
60
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 61 of 97
in two of his other MDLEA cases, his clients had been found guilty after a trial but
nevertheless were granted large downward variances and received sentences
between 120 and 188 months’ imprisonment.
In opposing 120-month sentences, the government argued that sentences
must have meaning and that if a defendant goes to trial, loses, and then receives a
downward variance to the bare statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 120
months, there would be no incentive for defendants to take responsibility for their
criminal actions. The government noted that only one district court judge had
granted the downward variances Cabezas-Montano’s counsel referred to and that
none of the judges in the district who presided over MDLEA cases had ever given
a minor-role reduction, whether the defendants pled guilty or went to trial. The
government emphasized that the defendants’ advisory guidelines ranges were
reasonable and requested 240-month sentences for Cabezas-Montano and Guagua-
Alarcon and at least a 360-month sentence for Palacios-Solis.
F. District Court’s Sentences
The district court then addressed the § 3553(a) factors. The district court
explained that it had presided over several MDLEA cases in the past and would
seek to be consistent with himself, rather than with other judges, especially given
the defendants’ advisory guidelines ranges in this case. The district court noted:
(1) the large quantity of drugs involved in this case; (2) the drugs were valued at
61
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 62 of 97
many millions of dollars; (3) there had been an uptick in MDLEA cases recently;
and (4) these drug trafficking operations have a profound impact on U.S.
communities and law enforcement. The district court observed that, in order to
promote respect for the law and to provide deterrence, “the message needs to be
sent home to these individuals who are contemplating engaging in this kind of
criminal behavior, that the United States intends on doing something about” drug
trafficking. The district court explicitly stated that it considered the parties’
statements, the PSRs containing the advisory guidelines ranges, and the § 3553(a)
factors. The district court determined that, for each defendant, sentences at the
lower end of the advisory guidelines range would provide sufficient punishment
and deterrence.
The district court sentenced: (1) Cabezas-Montano and Guagua-Alarcon to
240 months’ imprisonment, concurrently on both counts; and (2) Palacios-Solis to
360 months’ imprisonment, concurrently on both counts. The defendants renewed
all prior objections, but made no new objections.
XII. SAFETY-VALVE RELIEF
Turning back to the arguments on appeal, Palacios-Solis and Cabezas-
Montano challenge the constitutionality of the “safety-valve” provisions of 18
62
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 63 of 97
U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.35 They concede, however, that they are
not eligible for safety-valve relief because, at the time of their MDLEA convictions
under Title 46, no Title 46 offense was covered by the safety valve in § 3553(f) or
§ 5C1.2. See United States v. Pertuz-Pertuz, 679 F.3d 1327, 1328 (11th Cir. 2012)
(holding that, because no Title 46 offense appeared in the plain terms of the safety
valve, defendants convicted under Title 46—which includes MDLEA offenses—
were not eligible for safety-valve relief). 36
Further, this Court has held that the safety valve’s prior exclusion of Title 46
defendants does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
35
We review de novo a district court’s interpretation of a statute and whether a statute is
constitutional. Valois, 915 F.3d at 722 n.1.
36
Congress recently amended § 3553(f) to add MDLEA offenses to the list of crimes
eligible for safety-valve relief. See First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391,
§ 402(a)(1)(A)(ii), 132 Stat. 5194, 5221 (2018). However, Congress made the amendment
applicable to convictions entered on or after the date of enactment, December 21, 2018. First
Step Act § 402(b), 132 Stat. at 5221. That amendment thus does not apply to the defendants in
this case because they were convicted in 2017.
The prior version of § 3553(f) in effect in 2017 provided that, “in the case of an offense
under section 401, 404, or 406 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. [§§] 841, 844, 846)
or section 1010 or 1013 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. [§§]
960, 963), the court shall impose a sentence pursuant to guidelines . . . without regard to any
statutory minimum sentence, if the court finds at sentencing, after the Government has been
afforded the opportunity to make a recommendation, that” the defendant has met five
requirements. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) (effective May 27, 2010, to Dec. 20, 2018). Importantly, the
fifth requirement was that, “not later than the time of the sentencing hearing, the defendant has
truthfully provided to the Government all information and evidence the defendant has concerning
the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or
plan.” Id. § 3553(f)(5).
Similarly, § 5C1.2 provides that, “in the case of an offense under 21 U.S.C. § 841, § 844,
§ 846, § 960, or § 963, the court shall impose a sentence in accordance with the applicable
guidelines without regard to any statutory minimum sentence, if the court finds that the
defendant meets the criteria in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1)-(5).” U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a). Both
provisions are known as the “safety valve.” United States v. Johnson, 375 F.3d 1300, 1302 (11th
Cir. 2004).
63
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 64 of 97
Castillo, 899 F.3d at 1212-13; see also Valois, 915 F.3d at 729 (following Castillo
and reaching the same holding). In doing so, we applied rational-basis review and
concluded that Congress had “legitimate reasons to craft strict sentences for
violations of the [MDLEA].” Castillo, 899 F.3d at 1213. We highlighted the
“pressing concerns about foreign relations and global organizations” and the
difficulties inherent in policing “drug trafficking on the vast expanses of
international waters.” Id. Palacio-Solis’s and Cabezas-Montano’s equal-
protection challenges to the safety-valve thus are foreclosed by Castillo.
Palacio-Solis and Cabezas-Montano also contend that the safety-valve’s fifth
requirement—that defendants provide information to the government about their
offenses—violates their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. “[T]his
Court has not addressed in a published opinion this Fifth Amendment issue as to
the safety valve.” See Valois, 915 F.3d at 730. In Valois, we briefly discussed the
issue but ultimately did not decide it. Id. Namely, we pointed out that, in United
States v. Henry, 883 F.2d 1010, 1011 (11th Cir. 1989), this Court concluded that
“U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, the acceptance-of-responsibility provision of the Guidelines,
does not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.” Valois,
915 F.3d at 730 (explaining that “[s]ection 3E1.1(a) is not a punishment; rather, the
reduction for acceptance of responsibility is a reward for those defendants who
express genuine remorse for their criminal conduct” (quotation marks omitted)).
64
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 65 of 97
We also pointed out that “[s]everal of our sister circuits have concluded that the
same is true for the safety valve in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a).”
Id. (citing United States v. Warren, 338 F.3d 258, 266-67 (3d Cir. 2003); United
States v. Cruz, 156 F.3d 366, 374 (2d Cir. 1998); United States v. Washman, 128
F.3d 1305, 1307 (9th Cir. 1997); United States v. Arrington, 73 F.3d 144, 149-50
(7th Cir. 1996)).
Nevertheless, in Valois, we declined to decide the issue given our
conclusions that safety-valve relief was unavailable to the Title 46 MDLEA
defendants in that case and that such unavailability did not violate the Equal
Protection Clause and is constitutional. Id. Similarly, here, because Palacio-Solis
and Cabezas-Montano are not eligible for safety-valve relief in the first place, we
need not consider these defendants’ claim that the substantive requirements for
safety-valve relief violate their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
See id.
XIII. PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE REASONABLENESS
All defendants raise various procedural and substantive reasonableness
arguments related to their sentences. Generally, we review the reasonableness of a
sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard using a two-step process.
United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1190 (11th Cir. 2008). First, we look at
whether the district court committed any significant procedural error, such as
65
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 66 of 97
miscalculating the advisory guidelines range, treating the guidelines as mandatory,
failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly
erroneous facts, or failing to explain adequately the chosen sentence.37 Id. Then,
we examine whether the sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of the
§ 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances. Id. The defendants, as the
parties challenging their sentences, bear the burden to show that their sentences are
unreasonable. Id. at 1189.
A. Minor-Role Reduction
All three defendants argue that the district court erred in denying them a
two-level minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). 38
Section 3B1.2(b) provides that a defendant is entitled to a two-level decrease
in his offense level if he was a “minor participant in any criminal activity.”
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). A defendant is a “minor participant” if he was “less culpable
37
The § 3553(a) factors include, of relevance: (1) the nature and circumstances of the
offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to reflect the seriousness
of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;
(3) the need for deterrence; (4) the need to protect the public from the defendant’s future crimes;
(5) the sentencing guidelines range; and (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities.
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(2), (4), (6).
38
“We review a district court’s denial of a role reduction for clear error.” Valois, 915
F.3d at 730 n.8. This Court will not disturb a district court’s findings regarding the denial of a
role reduction “unless we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
made.” Id. at 731. “The court’s choice between two permissible views of the evidence will
rarely constitute clear error, so long as the basis of the trial court’s decision is supported by the
record and the court did not misapply a rule of law.” Id. The defendant bears the burden of
establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, his minor role in the offense. Id.
66
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 67 of 97
than most other participants in the criminal activity,” but his role “could not be
described as minimal.” Id. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.5. In determining whether a defendant
is entitled to a minor-role reduction, the district court must consider the totality of
the circumstances and the facts of the particular case. Id. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(C).
In United States v. De Varon, this Court established two principles to “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 [he] has been
held accountable at sentencing,’ and (2) ‘[his] role as compared to that of other
participants in [his] relevant conduct.’” United States v. Presendieu, 880 F.3d
1228, 1249 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930,
940 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc)). “In making the ultimate finding as to role in the
offense, the district court should look to each of these principles and measure the
discernable facts against them.” De Varon, 175 F.3d at 945.
In De Varon, this Court pointed to these examples of relevant factors for the
district court to consider in the drug courier context: “amount of drugs, fair market
value of drugs, amount of money to be paid to the courier, equity interest in the
drugs, role in planning the criminal scheme, and role in the distribution.” Id.
(stressing that this is a non-exhaustive list, wherein no one factor is more important
than another). This determination is highly fact-intensive and “falls within the
sound discretion of the trial court.” Id.
67
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 68 of 97
The amended commentary to § 3B1.2 presents a non-exhaustive list of
factors “[s]imilar to the fact-intensive, multi-faceted approach this Court
established in De Varon.” Presendieu, 880 F.3d at 1249; see also Cruickshank,
837 F.3d at 1193 (explaining that the purpose of Amendment 794 to the
commentary to § 3B1.2 was to “further clarify the factors for a court to consider
for a minor-role adjustment” in a way that “still continue[s] to embrace the
approach we took in De Varon”). These factors include: (1) “the degree to which
the defendant understood the scope and structure of the criminal activity”; (2) “the
degree to which the defendant participated in planning or organizing the criminal
activity”; (3) “the degree to which the defendant exercised decision-making
authority or influenced the exercise of decision-making authority”; (4) “the nature
and extent of the defendant’s participation in the commission of the criminal
activity”; and (5) “the degree to which the defendant stood to benefit from the
criminal activity.” U.S.S.G. Supp. to App. C, Amend. 794; U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, cmt.
n.3(C) (2015).
“The court must consider all of [the § 3B1.2] factors to the extent applicable,
and it commits legal error in making a minor role decision based solely on one
factor.” Valois, 915 F.3d at 732 (quotation marks omitted); see, e.g., Cruickshank,
837 F.3d at 1194-95 (concluding that, “although nothing in De Varon or
Amendment 794 [to § 3B1.2’s commentary] precludes a district court from
68
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 69 of 97
considering the drug quantity with which the defendant was involved as an
indicator of his role, we think it was legal error for the district court to say that this
is the only factor to be considered in a case like this one”).
Here, based on the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not
clearly err in denying the defendants’ request for a minor-role reduction. Under
De Varon’s first principle, the inquiry is whether the defendant “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; United
States v. Martin, 803 F.3d 581, 591 (11th Cir. 2015). The record shows that all
three defendants knowingly participated in the illegal transportation of a large
quantity of high-purity and high-value cocaine, that they and their transportation
roles were important to that scheme, and that they were held accountable for that
conduct only. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(C); De Varon, 175 F.3d at 941-43;
see also United States v. Monzo, 852 F.3d 1343, 1347 (11th Cir. 2017)
(considering, as part of the totality of the circumstances, that the defendant
“participated in the distribution of high-purity [drugs], . . . that he was responsible
only for his direct role in the conspiracy, and that he was important to the
scheme”).
While these facts do not render the defendants ineligible for the minor-role
reduction, they support the district court’s denial of the reduction. Further, the fact
69
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 70 of 97
that the defendants’ transportation roles—moving a large quantity of high-purity
cocaine through international waters—were important, and indeed critical, to the
drug trafficking scheme was relevant to the fourth factor in § 3B1.2’s commentary
about the nature of the defendants’ participation in the criminal activity. See
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(C). That the defendants each were to receive $20,000
for their significant transportation roles showed the defendants stood to benefit
from the criminal act, which is the fifth factor in § 3B1.2’s commentary. See id.
In addition, under De Varon’s second principle, the record indicates that
none of the defendants were “less culpable than most other participants in the
criminal activity.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.5. If anything, Palacios-Solis was the
most culpable of the three defendants because, as he testified, he was the captain of
the vessel. While Cabezas-Montano and Guagua-Alarcon appear to have had less
of a role than Palacios-Solis, that fact alone does not make them minor
participants. “The fact that a defendant’s role may be less than that of other
participants engaged in the relevant conduct may not be dispositive of role in the
offense, since it is possible that none are minor or minimal participants.” De
Varon, 175 F.3d at 944. Simply put, the three defendants here did not carry their
burden to show how they were less culpable than “most other participants” in the
criminal activity, as they presented no supporting evidence at trial or at sentencing.
See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.5; Valois, 915 F.3d at 731.
70
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 71 of 97
The defendants do principally argue that they were less culpable than other
participants in the larger conspiracy, such as those who recruited and trained the
defendants, those who planned the scheme, and those with a financial interest in
the drugs. In this vein, the defendants argue that the district court denied them
minor-role adjustments solely because the other participants were not charged and
the defendants were held accountable only for the drug amounts charged against
them.
Subsequent amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines clarify that, “[i]n
considering a § 3B1.2 adjustment, a court must measure the defendant’s role
against the relevant conduct for which the defendant is held accountable at
sentencing, whether or not other defendants are charged.” See U.S.S.G. App. C,
Amend. 635, Reason for Amendment. We also recognize the Sentencing
Commission’s statement, in agreement with our decision in De Varon, that
Ҥ 3B1.2 does not automatically preclude a defendant from being considered for a
mitigating role adjustment in a case in which the defendant is held accountable
under § 1B1.3 solely for the amount of drugs the defendant personally handled.”
See id.
Nevertheless, the district court is not required to consider the culpability of
any unknown conspirators or a hypothetical conspiracy. See De Varon, 175 F.3d
at 944. This Court has explained that the district court should consider “other
71
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 72 of 97
participants only to the extent that they are identifiable or discernable from the
evidence” and “may consider only those participants who were involved in the
relevant conduct attributed to the defendant.” Id. The trial evidence pointed to
only the three defendants as participants involved in the relevant conduct that was
attributed to each of them. The defendants submitted no evidence at trial or at
sentencing regarding any other co-conspirators, let alone anyone who recruited or
trained the defendants, plotted the offense, or owned the drugs. “Despite having
the burden of proof, [the defendants] did not put forth evidence showing who else
was involved or what their roles were. Without such evidence, the district court
could not compare the roles of the other conspirators or ‘determine that the
defendant[s] w[ere] less culpable than most other participants in [their] relevant
conduct.’” See United States v. Wright, 862 F.3d 1265, 1278 (11th Cir. 2017)
(quoting De Varon, 175 F.3d at 944).
To the extent that the defendants argue that the district court denied them
minor-role reductions on the sole ground that they were being held accountable for
only their conduct and the drug amount on their vessel, the record shows that the
district court considered not one but several grounds in denying the reduction. See
U.S.S.G. App. C, Amend. 635, Reason for Amendment; Valois, 915 F.3d at 732.
During the sentencing colloquy, Cabezas-Montano’s counsel argued and the
district court considered: (1) the defendants’ argument that they were just the “little
72
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 73 of 97
guys” in a larger operation, rather than, as the district court put it, “big guy[s]”
representing the owners of the cocaine; (2) how much money couriers stood to
make in these operations; (3) the critical role of transportation within the drug
trafficking industry; and (4) that the defendants were being held accountable under
§ 1B1.3 solely for the amount of drugs they personally handled. This discussion
related to numerous factors outlined by De Varon and the commentary to § 3B1.2,
and the defendants have failed to show that any of these factors was improper. See
U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(C); De Varon, 175 F.3d at 945.
Based on the totality of the circumstances and the record in this case, the
district court did not clearly err in denying the defendants minor-role reductions
under § 3B1.2.
B. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1)
Cabezas-Montano and Palacios-Solis argue that the district court
procedurally erred under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1) because it “gave no indication or
explanation” as to why it chose a sentence at the particular point in the advisory
guidelines range or as to why a sentence at the low-end of that range was
sufficient.39 Under § 3553(c)(1), a district court “at the time of sentencing, shall
state in open court the reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence.” 18
39
We review de novo whether the district court’s explanation of its sentence complied
with § 3553(c)(1), regardless of whether the defendant objected on such grounds at sentencing.
United States v. Bonilla, 463 F.3d 1176, 1181 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Williams, 438
F.3d 1272, 1274 (11th Cir. 2006).
73
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 74 of 97
U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1). In doing so, the district court should “tailor its comments to
show that the sentence imposed is appropriate” in light of the § 3553(a) factors.
United States v. Bonilla, 463 F.3d 1176, 1181 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks
omitted).
That said, the district court is not required to incant specific language or
articulate its consideration of each individual § 3553(a) factor, so long as the whole
record reflects the district court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors. Id. at
1181-82. When the district court fails to mention the § 3553(a) factors, we look to
the record to see if the district court did, in fact, consider the relevant factors. See
United States v. Dorman, 488 F.3d 936, 944 (11th Cir. 2007). When pronouncing
its chosen sentence, the district court need only set forth enough to satisfy us that it
considered the parties’ arguments and had a reasoned basis for exercising its own
legal decisionmaking authority. United States v. Carpenter, 803 F.3d 1224, 1232
(11th Cir. 2015).
Here, the record shows that the district court provided a sufficient
explanation of its imposed sentences under § 3553(c)(1). Before pronouncing its
sentences, the district court judge expressly articulated that it had considered the
parties’ arguments, the PSRs containing the advisory guidelines ranges, and the
§ 3553(a) factors. In the downward-variance arguments before the district court,
the parties had also discussed the majority of the § 3553(a) factors—namely, the
74
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 75 of 97
nature and circumstances of the offenses, the defendants’ histories and
characteristics, the advisory guidelines ranges, and the needs for deterrence, to
reflect the seriousness of the offenses, to protect the public, and to promote respect
for the law. Though the district court did not discuss the defendants’ individual
circumstances, the district court stated it had considered the parties’ arguments and
the PSRs, both of which contained discussions of the defendants’ individual
circumstances. That is sufficient. See Bonilla, 463 F.3d at 1181; United States v.
Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1194-95 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (explaining that the
district court need not discuss each individual factor on the record).
In fact, the district court provided a sufficiently in-depth explanation of its
sentences, explicitly highlighting several § 3553(a) factors, including: (1) the
sentences given in other recent MDLEA cases in comparison to the applicable
advisory guidelines ranges; (2) the seriousness of the defendants’ drug trafficking
crime, which involved a large quantity of drugs with high monetary value; and
(3) the needs to promote respect for the law, to protect the public, and for
deterrence, given the recent uptick in MDLEA cases and their profound impact on
communities and law enforcement. The district court stated that low-end
guidelines range sentences would provide sufficient punishment and deterrence
and sentenced Cabezas-Montano to 240 months’ imprisonment (towards the
bottom of the applicable 235-to-293 months advisory guidelines range) and
75
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 76 of 97
Palacios-Solis to 360 months’ imprisonment (at the very bottom of the applicable
360-months-to-life advisory guidelines range).
Therefore, the district court complied with § 3553(c)(1)’s mandate to “state
in open court the reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(c)(1). Cabezas-Montano and Palacios-Solis have not shown that the
district court erred in explaining their sentences. See Pugh, 515 F.3d at 1190;
Bonilla, 463 F.3d at 1181.
C. Denial of Downward Variances
All defendants argue that, in denying their motions for a downward variance,
the district court erroneously considered that they exercised their right to trial,
thereby unconstitutionally penalizing them for exercising this right and violating
§ 3553(a). The defendants allege that their decision to go to trial was the
determining factor in the district court’s decision to impose high sentences.
Generally, when a district court recognizes its authority to grant a variance,
we review for abuse of discretion its decision not to grant a downward variance.
United States v. Cubero, 754 F.3d 888, 897-98 & 897 n.8 (11th Cir. 2014).
However, while the defendants moved for downward variances below, none raised
any argument regarding the district court’s alleged reliance on their exercise of
their right to trial in denying the motions. Thus, their new challenge on appeal is
reviewed for plain error. See Ramirez-Flores, 743 F.3d at 822.
76
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 77 of 97
“[T]he district court has considerable discretion in deciding whether the
§ 3553(a) factors justify a variance and the extent of such a variance.” United
States v. Croteau, 819 F.3d 1293, 1309 (11th Cir. 2016). “We give that decision
due deference because the district court has an institutional advantage in making
sentencing determinations.” Cubero, 754 F.3d at 892 (quotation marks omitted).
Here, the record shows no error regarding the district court’s denial of the
defendants’ downward-variance motions, let alone any plain error affecting their
substantial rights. Cabezas-Montano and Guagua-Alarcon have not shown any
error because, in denying their specific downward-variance motions, the district
court never mentioned that they exercised their right to trial. Rather, in denying
their motions, the district court: (1) rejected the defendants’ argument that they
were just the “little guys” in a larger operation; (2) rejected their argument that
they and/or other couriers would be deterred from making future trafficking trips
when the possible reward for a successful trip was so high; (3) noted that MDLEA
penalties were significant because of the harm drug offenses wreak on society; and
(4) found that each defendant was an essential member of the conspiracy.
It was not until Palacios-Solis raised his downward-variance argument—
several pages of transcript after Cabeza-Montano’s and Guagua-Alarcon’s motions
already were denied—that the district court made the complained-of comments. In
denying Palacios-Solis’s downward-variance motion, the district court commented:
77
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 78 of 97
Also, the motion for a downward variance, I think we’re treading
on some difficult waters if we come in and say—I mean, I think every
defendant has an absolute right to go to trial and exercise it and
understand what the consequences are.
But what I’m hearing from you and others in these types of cases
is that the guideline amount of time is just a lot of time; so why not just
give us the mandatory-minimum every time. So let us have two bites
at the apple: Let us go to trial and maybe we’ll be acquitted, we can all
go home. And sometimes we have acquittals in these cases and
sometimes we have mistrials.
But if we don’t get acquitted, then at least give us the minimum-
mandatory with a downward departure so that we can kind of hedge our
bets. We want our cake and eat it. We don’t want to have to face the
guideline sentence. We want to go to trial and hopefully get acquitted.
But if we do go to trial and we get convicted, then we want the
mandatory-minimum. You know, if we start setting up that precedent,
then everybody is going to want to roll the dice with one hand tied
behind their back.
Anyway, I don’t think a downward departure or variance is
justified.
In making the comments, the district court made no reference to Cabeza-Montano
or Guagua-Alarcon, or their motions.
Even if the district court’s comments were made in reference to each of the
defendants’ downward-variance motions, the defendants still have not shown error.
The defendants describe the district court’s comments as denying their downward-
variance motions solely in an effort to punish them for going to trial. The record
does not support such a portrayal. Rather, the district court actually acknowledged
the defendants’ “absolute right to go to trial,” and then the remainder of the district
78
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 79 of 97
court’s comments were its efforts at characterizing the nature of Palacios-Solis’s
argument for the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. Notably, the district
court characterized Palacios-Solis’s argument as being that, no matter what, a
defendant every time should still receive only the mandatory statutory minimum
sentence after trial because the length of the guidelines sentences in these types of
drug cases is “just a lot of time.” The district court rejected this argument and
stated, “Anyway, I don’t think a downward departure or variance is justified,”
indicating that it was denying Palacios-Solis’s motion on the merits, just as it had
earlier denied Cabeza-Montano’s and Guagua-Alarcon’s motions on the merits.
Thus, given the record as a whole, the defendants have not shown that the district
court’s denial of their downward-variance motions was an effort to penalize them
for going to trial.
D. Substantive Reasonableness
Cabezas-Montano, and Palacios-Solis by adoption, argue that their sentences
are substantively unreasonable.40 Yet, when a district court imposes a sentence
within the advisory guidelines range, we ordinarily will expect the sentence to be a
reasonable one. Carpenter, 803 F.3d at 1234; United States v. Docampo, 573 F.3d
1091, 1101 (11th Cir. 2009). Further, a district court may attach great weight to
one factor over others, and the weight it attaches to any one factor is committed to
40
The record does not indicate that Guagua-Alarcon has adopted this argument.
79
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 80 of 97
its sound discretion. United States v. Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d 1249, 1254 (11th
Cir. 2015).
Under the abuse-of-discretion standard, we will vacate a sentence on
substantive reasonableness grounds only if “we are left with the definite and firm
conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing
the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of
reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” Irey, 612 F.3d at 1190
(quotation marks omitted). We will not “set aside a sentence merely because we
would have decided that another one is more appropriate” and we ensure only that
the district court’s sentence is a reasonable one. Id. at 1191.
Here, Cabezas-Montano’s 240-month sentence falls near the bottom of the
235-to-293-month advisory guidelines range, a strong indication of reasonableness.
See Carpenter, 803 F.3d at 1234; Docampo, 573 F.3d at 1101. Similarly, Palacios-
Solis’s 360-month sentence falls at the very bottom of the 360-months-to-life
advisory guidelines range, also suggesting reasonableness. See id. Nevertheless,
they argue that their within-guidelines-range sentences are still substantively
unreasonable because the district court considered only the seriousness of the
defendants’ offenses and the need to promote general deterrence and failed to
consider (1) their individual histories and circumstances, and (2) the sentences
imposed by different judges on similarly situated defendants in Cabezas-
80
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 81 of 97
Montano’s counsel’s other MDLEA cases.
While the district court did not expressly discuss these defendants’
individual histories and circumstances, the record belies their assertion that it did
not consider them. As outlined above, the district court explicitly considered the
defendants’ PSRs and downward-variance arguments, and it also heard their
allocutions, all of which reflected their individual histories and characteristics.
Namely, Cabezas-Montano and Palacios-Solis highlighted their familial
relationships in Colombia and Ecuador, guilt and remorse from being separated
from their family members, poverty, efforts to support their families as low-income
fishermen, lack of prior crimes, and alleged minor roles in the offense. Similarly,
the district court heard Cabezas-Montano’s counsel’s arguments regarding the
large downward variances received by purported similarly situated MDLEA
defendants in his other cases, heard the government’s opposing argument that only
one district court judge had granted those large downward variances, and even
asked the parties clarifying questions about those other cases. The district court
was not required to discuss these factors in more detail. See Irey, 612 F.3d at
1194-95.
Cabezas-Montano and Palacios-Solis also contend that the district court
imposed a within-guidelines-range sentence based on the highest drug quantity and
did not meaningfully distinguish their individual conduct from that of a “drug
81
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 82 of 97
kingpin.” This contention is unsupported, speculative, and ignores that the district
court sentenced Cabezas-Montano at the low-end of his applicable advisory
guidelines range and his total sentence was 120 months less than his more culpable
codefendant, Palacios-Solis, who admitted to being the vessel’s captain. And
given Palacios-Solis’s role as the captain, we cannot say the district court erred in
imposing his low-end 360-month guidelines sentence.
While Cabezas-Montano and Palacios-Solis focus on their individual
histories and circumstances and the sentences received by purported similarly
situated defendants in other MDLEA cases, these are only two factors in the
§ 3553(a) analysis. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (6). The district court was well
within its substantial discretion to weigh more heavily other considerations, like:
(1) the applicable advisory guidelines range; (2) the seriousness of the defendants’
high-quantity and high-value drug trafficking crime; and (3) the needs to promote
respect for the law, to protect the public, and for deterrence, given the prevalence
and profound impact of MDLEA cases. See id. § 3553(a)(1)-(2), (4); Rosales-
Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1254.
All in all, Cabezas-Montano and Palacios-Solis have failed to show that “the
district court committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors
by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated
by the facts of [this] case.” See Irey, 612 F.3d at 1190 (quotation marks omitted).
82
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 83 of 97
XIV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the defendants’ convictions and
sentences.
AFFIRMED.
83
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 84 of 97
ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judge, concurring:
I concur in the panel’s opinion but write separately to address two points.
First, I am deeply troubled that the government took seven weeks between arresting
the defendants and bringing them before a magistrate judge for a probable-cause
determination. And second, I am concerned that one of our holdings in United States
v. Rivera, 944 F.2d 1563, 1568 (11th Cir. 1991), on which the panel opinion relies,
is incorrect. While I urge the Court to reconsider that holding en banc in an
appropriate case, I do not think our error in Riviera affects the ultimate outcome
here.
I.
The government is fortunate that the defendants did not raise the Coast
Guard’s apparent seven-week odyssey in the district court.1 Had the defendants
done so, the government would have had to establish under Rule 5(a)(1)(B), Fed. R.
1
The map below shows the point where the Coast Guard encountered the defendants,
southwest of El Salvador, and the place to which the Coast Guard took the defendants, Key West,
Florida.
84
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 85 of 97
Crim. P., that its seven-week delay was not “unnecessary.” Since the defendants did
not press this claim in the district court, though, we have no information about the
reason for the delay, so we cannot say the district court plainly erred in not, on its
own, realizing that a seven-week delay occurred and finding that the delay was
unnecessary.
But seven weeks! That’s a long time. Christopher Columbus’s first voyage
across the entire Atlantic Ocean, from the Canary Islands to the Bahamas, took only
roughly five weeks. How Long Did It Take Columbus and His Crew to Cross the
Atlantic, Reference, https://www.reference.com/history/long-did-columbus-his-
crew-cross-atlantic-ocean-81eb6768c230a21c (last visited Jan. 27, 2020). And in
1873, Jules Verne contemplated a voyage around the whole world (by sea and rail)
would take only 80 days. In fact, Nellie Bly 2 beat his estimate in 1890 by completing
the journey in 72 days, six hours, eleven minutes, and fourteen seconds. 3 It’s hard
2
Nellie Bly was born Elizabeth Jane Cochran. She began using the pseudonym Nellie Bly
when she started writing for the Pittsburgh Dispatch. Arlisha R. Norwood, Nellie Bly, National
Woman’s History Museum, https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/
nellie-bly (last visited Jan. 27, 2020). At a time when women were not welcomed as reporters,
Bly’s work established her as one of the most well-known journalists in the country. Id. Among
her groundbreaking work, Bly helped pioneer the field of investigative journalism, going
undercover as a mentally ill person to investigate the notorious insane asylum on Blackwell’s
Island (now Roosevelt Island). Id. As a result of Bly’s exposé for the New York World on her
time at the asylum, the New York District Attorney’s Office undertook a major investigation of
the facility, culminating in significant changes in New York City’s Department of Public Charities
and Corrections. Nellie Bly, Biography (Nov. 6, 2019), https://www.biography.com/activist/
nellie-bly (last visited Jan. 27, 2020).
3
Jan 25, 1890 CE: Around the World in 72 Days, National Geographic, https://www.
nationalgeographic.org/thisday/jan25/around-world-72-days/ (last visited Jan. 27, 2020); 129
years ago, Nellie Bly passed through Lancaster on her ‘72 days around the world’,
85
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 86 of 97
to believe that the Coast Guard, nearly 126 years later, needed 70% of Bly’s travel
period to go only between Central and North America.
Surely at some point a delay becomes presumptively “unnecessary,” even by
plain-error standards. Perhaps we cannot say definitively that seven weeks for this
trip is presumptively “unnecessary,” but what if the Coast Guard had taken an extra
month? What about an entire year? The government might be able to explain such
delays—and again, we have no record in this case—but a lengthy trip like this raises
more than a few questions.
Plus, if the government could have delivered the defendants to a closer
jurisdiction in less time, it seems to me that Rule 5(a)(1)(B) required it to do so—
regardless of the fact that 46 U.S.C. § 70504(b)(2) allows an alleged MDLEA
offender to “be tried in any district,” “if the offense was begun or committed upon
the high seas.” Any delay occasioned by shipping the defendants to a further
jurisdiction, for forum-shopping purposes (as the defendants assert), certainly would
have been “unnecessary.”4
In addition to violating Rule 5, “unnecessary” delay in presentment may also
be unconstitutional. True, the Supreme Court has suggested that the Fourth
LancasterOnline, https://lancasteronline.com/features/years-ago-nellie-bly-passed-through-lancas
ter-on-her-days/article_01fe8868-1e8d-11e9-9be8-13475110aeb6.html (last visited Jan. 27,
2020).
4
Once again, though, the problem here is that the record is devoid of evidence that, under
the marine conditions at the time of the journey, any other jurisdiction would have been materially
closer than Key West, so we cannot find plain error on that basis on this record.
86
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 87 of 97
Amendment “has no application” outside the United States to “a citizen and resident
of [a foreign country] with no voluntary attachment to the United States.” United
States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 274-75 (1989). But that does not mean
that the Constitution does not constrain the government’s powers at all. “Even when
the United States acts outside its borders, its power are not absolute and unlimited
but are subject to such restrictions as are expressed in the Constitution.” Boumediene
v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 765 (2008) (cleaned up).
Depending on the necessity for the length of the detention during the delay in
presentment, one of those limitations may include the Suspension Clause. The
Supreme Court has explained that the writ of habeas corpus is “an essential
mechanism in the separation-of-powers scheme.” Id. at 743. That is so since habeas
“preserves limited government” by allowing a detainee to challenge his detention
when a branch of the government has exceeded its constitutional powers in
imprisoning him. See id. at 744. And since “the Constitution’s separation-of-powers
structure, like the substantive guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments,
protects persons as well as citizens, foreign nationals who have the privilege of
litigating in our courts can seek to enforce separation-of-power principles” such as
the Suspension Clause. Id. at 743 (citations omitted); cf. Nishimura Ekiu v. United
States, 142 U.S. 651, 660 (1892) (“An alien immigrant, prevented from landing by
any such officer claiming authority to do so under an act of congress, and thereby
87
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 88 of 97
restrained of his liberty, is doubtless entitled to a writ of habeas corpus to ascertain
whether the restraint is lawful.”).
The Supreme Court has concluded that we must consider at least three factors
in evaluating the reach of the Suspension Clause: “(1) the citizenship and status of
the detainee and the adequacy of the process through which that status determination
was made; (2) the nature of the sites where apprehension and then detention took
place; and (3) the practical obstacles inherent in resolving the prisoner’s entitlement
to the writ.” Boumediene, 553 U.S. at 766. When we do so, it seems likely that the
Suspension Clause applies to foreign-national criminal detainees in sole United
States custody before they have been charged—even if the United States is holding
them outside this country.
To understand why, we must review Boumediene. In Boumediene, the
petitioners were aliens designated as enemy combatants and detained at the United
States Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Id. at 732. They denied they were
enemy combatants and sought the issuance of writs of habeas corpus for their
release. Id. at 734. Applying the three factors listed above, the Supreme Court
concluded that the Boumediene petitioners could seek habeas in United States courts,
since Congress had not acted in conformance with the requirements of the
Suspension Clause when it enacted a statute stripping the courts of jurisdiction to
issue the writ. Id. at 766-771, 792.
88
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 89 of 97
With respect to the first factor—the citizenship and status of the detainee and
the adequacy of the process through which that status determination was made—the
Court noted that the detainees were not American citizens but emphasized that they
objected to their characterization as enemy combatants. Id. at 766. For that reason,
the Court examined the procedural protections the detainees received in the hearings
where the government determined them to be enemy combatants. Id. at 766-67. In
so doing, the Court concluded that these protections—where the detainee received a
“personal representative” (though not a lawyer or advocate) and was able to present
“reasonably available evidence”—fell “well short of the procedures and adversarial
mechanisms that would eliminate the need for habeas corpus review.” Id. at 767
Turning to the second consideration—the nature of the sites where
apprehension and then detention occurred—the Court observed that the detainees
had been taken into custody outside the United States and detained in a place that is
“technically outside the sovereign territory of the United States.” Id. at 768. Though
these facts weighed against a finding that the detainees had rights under the
Suspension Clause, the Court chose to instead stress that the United States enjoyed
absolute and indefinite control over the facility at Guantanamo Bay. Id. at 768-69.
As a result, the Court reasoned that “[i]n every practical sense Guantanamo is not
abroad; it is within the constant jurisdiction of the United States.” Id. at 769.
89
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 90 of 97
As to the third factor—the practical obstacles inherent in resolving the
prisoner’s entitlement to the writ—the Court first conceded “that there are costs to
holding the Suspension Clause applicable in a case of military detention abroad.”
Id. at 769. Nevertheless, it did not find the costs dispositive. Id. Rather, the Court
focused on the government’s lack of credible arguments that the military mission at
Guantanamo would be “compromised” if United States courts heard the detainees’
habeas claims. Id. It further noted that it had no reason to believe that adjudicating
a habeas corpus petition would somehow upset Cuba. Id. at 770. And finally, it
observed that “the United States is, for all practical purposes, answerable to no other
sovereign for its acts” on Guantanamo. Id. Indeed, the Court recognized, the
detainees were “held in a territory that, while technically not part of the United
States, [was] under the complete and total control of our Government.” Id. at 771.
The case of MDLEA detainees in the Coast Guard’s sole custody on the high
seas is even more compelling. First, at the time they are detained on the Coast
Guard’s vessel, MDLEA arrestees, unlike Guantanamo detainees, receive no process
at all. They do not enjoy a proceeding of any type to determine whether the Coast
Guard has correctly concluded that probable cause supporting their arrest and
detention exists until after their detention on the high seas ends; they cannot present
evidence contesting their detention; and they do not receive “personal
representatives.” If the process available to the Guantanamo detainees did not
90
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 91 of 97
satisfy the Suspension Clause, then certainly the absence of process altogether
cannot.
Second, while Coast Guard vessels on the high seas are not within the
jurisdiction of the United States, as with Guantanamo, the United States enjoys
absolute and indefinite control over its own ships while they are in international
waters.
And finally, like the detainees at Guantanamo, MDLEA detainees onboard a
Coast Guard ship operating in international waters also are “under the complete and
total control of our Government.” For these reasons, it seems likely that, at least
theoretically, 5 an MDLEA detainee onboard a government vessel for an unnecessary
period enjoys the right to seek habeas corpus in a court of the United States.
In any case, at a minimum, the United States should give some serious
consideration to its procedures for presenting an MDLEA detainee arrested in
international waters. In the absence of a very good reason, detaining a person on the
high seas for seven weeks before formally charging him with a crime is just wrong.
II.
5
As a practical matter, such a right may not amount to much. While an MDLEA detainee
is in custody on a government vessel—even assuming he has the knowledge to prepare a petition
seeking habeas—he may not have a way to actually file such a petition. As a result, an MDLEA
detainee’s habeas rights might rely on whether others have knowledge of the detention and are in
a position to be able to file a habeas petition on behalf of the detainee. Of course, even if, as a
practical matter, a remedy is unattainable, that does not relieve the government of its obligation to
comply with the Constitution.
91
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 92 of 97
Next, though I recognize that we are bound by Rivera, I respectfully disagree
with its holding that, in the government’s case in chief, the government may present
testimony or otherwise comment on a defendant’s silence when the defendant was
in custody but before he received his Miranda6 warnings. Rivera, 944 F.2d at 1568.
As I read Miranda, its purpose was to avoid precisely this result. In fact,
Miranda described its own holding as follows: “the prosecution may not use
statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial
interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of [Miranda rights]
effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.” 384 U.S. at 444
(emphasis added). The Supreme Court noted, “[T]here can be no doubt that the Fifth
Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves
to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any
significant way . . . .” Id. at 467. Miranda further explained that the reading of
Miranda rights must occur “[p]rior to any questioning” because the rights are
designed “to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a
continuous opportunity to exercise it[.]” Id. at 444 (emphasis added).
If an in-custody person’s silence before the administration of Miranda rights
may be used against that person, then, in violation of Miranda, that person is not
“assured a continuous opportunity to exercise” his right of silence while subject to
6
384 U.S. 436 (1966).
92
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 93 of 97
the “inherently compelling pressures” of unwarned custodial interrogation. See
Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. 178, 184 (2013) (plurality opinion) (quoting Miranda,
384 U.S. at 467-68 & n.37). As a result, allowing a detainee’s silence while in
custody, but before administration of this procedure, to be used against that person
in the government’s case in chief eviscerates the purpose of Miranda. Admissibility
of in-custody, pre-Miranda silence in response to an officer’s questions or comments
also rewards the delayed administration of Miranda rights, so it can encourage law
enforcement to engage in such a practice.
Not only is our Rivera holding contrary to Miranda, but Fletcher v. Weir, 455
U.S. 603 (1982), the sole authority on which we relied in reaching our Rivera
holding, cannot bear the weight we have thrust upon its shoulders. In Fletcher, the
Supreme Court held only that using in-custody, pre-Miranda silence to impeach a
defendant who has taken the stand does not violate due process. Id. at 607. The
Court never endorsed or even suggested that due process condones relying on a
defendant’s in-custody, pre-Miranda silence in the government’s case in chief.
In particular, to justify the rule in Fletcher, the Court invoked common law,
noting that it “traditionally has allowed witnesses to be impeached by their previous
failure to state a fact in circumstances in which that fact naturally would have been
asserted.” Fletcher, 455 U.S. at 606 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
(emphasis added). Our Rivera analysis cites no common-law authority for the
93
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 94 of 97
proposition that in-custody, pre-Miranda silence may be used against a defendant in
the government’s case in chief. Nor does it explain why the fact that the common
law authorized admissibility of such reticence for impeachment purposes somehow
means that in-custody, pre-Miranda-rights silence may also be used against a
defendant in the government’s case in chief.
And the Supreme Court’s more recent caselaw—Salinas, 570 U.S. 178
(plurality opinion)—undermines our holding in Rivera. In Salinas, the Supreme
Court held that in non-custodial settings (before Miranda warnings are issued), a
person who wishes to rely on his right to remain silent must expressly invoke that
right. Id. at 190 (plurality opinion). But significantly, the Court noted that “a
witness’ failure to invoke the privilege must be excused where governmental
coercion makes his forfeiture of the privilege involuntary.” Id. at 184 (plurality
opinion). Citing to Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467-68 & n.37, the Court then went on to
explain that “a suspect who is subjected to the inherently compelling pressures of an
unwarned custodial interrogation need not invoke the privilege.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted). In other words, as recently as 2013, the Court reaffirmed
Miranda’s principle that an in-custody person’s silence, pre-Miranda rights, may
not be used against him, even if he does not expressly invoke his right to remain
silent.
94
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 95 of 97
For these reasons, I respectfully disagree with our holding in Rivera
authorizing the use of an arrestee’s silence against him, pre-Miranda rights. And I
urge my colleagues to reconsider this rule en banc.
Nevertheless, I think that use of the defendant’s in-custody, pre-Miranda-
rights silence does not affect the outcome here.
First, to the extent that the government relied on the defendants’ silence here
to establish subject-matter jurisdiction under the MDLEA, that was not error, even
if Rivera is wrong. “To qualify for the Fifth Amendment privilege, a communication
must be testimonial, incriminating, and compelled.” Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist.
Court of Nevada, Humboldt Cty., 542 U.S. 177, 189 (2004). The privilege covers
testimony that would either directly “support a conviction under a federal criminal
statute” or merely “furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the
claimant for a federal crime[.]” Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951).
But as the panel opinion points out, the “jurisdictional requirement is not an . . .
essential element of the MDLEA substantive offense,” Tinoco, 304 F.3d at 1109, so
it need not be submitted to the jury for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Panel Op.
at 26 (collecting cases). As a result, an MDLEA detainee’s testimonial
communication (including silence) is not “incriminating” for the purposes of the
Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination. More simply put, the
government’s use of an MDLEA detainee’s silence to prove statutory subject-matter
95
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 96 of 97
jurisdiction has nothing to do with proving that the detainee substantively violated
the MDLEA, so it does not implicate the Fifth Amendment.
And second, as it relates to the government’s use of the defendants’ silence as
evidence of their guilt on the substantive charges of drug-trafficking, on this record,
application of Rivera—even if, as I believe, it was wrongly decided—was harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967).
We have explained that “[o]verwhelming evidence of guilt” is relevant to assessing
whether an error of constitutional dimension is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
United States v. Guzman, 167 F.3d 1350, 1353 (11th Cir. 1999).
Here, the record is rife with such evidence. For starters, Palacios-Solis
testified that the defendants were adrift at sea for 27 to 30 days. Yet when the Coast
Guard encountered them, it found large amounts of water and sports drinks, as well
as fresh fruit and food items that did not appear to be that old. Nor did the defendants
show any signs of having been adrift at sea for four weeks. Plus, the bottom of the
vessel was clean and free from growth, also belying the defendants’ story. Besides
that, while Palacios-Solis said the defendants had been on a fishing trip, the Coast
Guard discovered no bait, fish, or fish remnants onboard. And the lines the Coast
Guard did recover appeared to be unserviceable and not usable for fishing. Then
there were the 25 bales of cocaine, located in a place consistent with the currents
from where the defendants allegedly ditched them. Not only that, but the Coast
96
Case: 17-14294 Date Filed: 01/30/2020 Page: 97 of 97
Guard found onboard the defendants’ boat the same kind of buoy and black line
recovered with the bales. The defendants also put gasoline on their boat’s surface—
a dangerous practice that did not appear to serve any legitimate purpose. Even so,
though, the Coast Guard still found traces of cocaine onboard the defendants’ boat.
In short, the defendants’ silence in response to the Coast Guards’ questions
about the boat’s captain and nationality pales in comparison to the torrent of other
evidence the government presented of the defendants’ guilt. As a result, even if
Rivera wrongly authorizes admission of defendants’ in-custody, pre-Miranda-rights
statements—which, for the reasons I have explained, I think it does—allowing the
government to rely in its case in chief on the defendants’ silence here would not
require reversal.
97