Case: 17-10603 Date Filed: 10/30/2017 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-10603
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-20381-KMW-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WALKIN DE LEON PERALTA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(October 30, 2017)
Before MARTIN, ROSENBAUM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-10603 Date Filed: 10/30/2017 Page: 2 of 4
Walkin De Leon Peralta appeals his convictions for possession with intent to
distribute a controlled substance on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States, and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled
substance on board a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, in
violation of 46 U.S.C. § 70506(a)(1) and (b). On appeal, De Leon contends that
the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (“MDLEA”), the statute under which he
was charged and convicted, is unconstitutional as applied to him. We affirm.
The Constitution permits Congress to “define and punish Piracies and
Felonies committed on the high Seas.” U.S. const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 10. Congress
enacted the MDLEA to “punish drug trafficking on the high seas.” United States
v. Estupinan, 453 F.3d 1336, 1338 (11th Cir. 2006). The MDLEA prohibits
individuals from “knowingly or intentionally . . . manufactur[ing] or distribut[ing],
or possess[ing] with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance” on
board “a vessel of the United States or a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States.” 46 U.S.C. § 70503(a), (e); see also United States v. Campbell, 743
F.3d 802, 805 (11th Cir. 2014). Under the MDLEA, a vessel “subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States” includes “a vessel without nationality,” a term
which includes “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.” 46 U.S.C.
§ 70502(c)(1)(A), (d)(1)(A).
2
Case: 17-10603 Date Filed: 10/30/2017 Page: 3 of 4
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.” 46 U.S.C. § 70504(a); see Campbell, 743 F.3d at 805. Instead,
jurisdictional issues under the MDLEA “are preliminary questions of law to be
determined solely by the trial judge.” 46 U.S.C. § 70504(a).
De Leon argues that Congress’s power to punish felonies on the high seas
does not extend to drug-trafficking offenses with no nexus to the United States.
Relying on principles of personal jurisdiction, he further asserts that it violates due
process for courts to exercise jurisdiction over conduct without such a nexus. He
also maintains that the MDLEA violates his rights under the Fifth and Sixth
Amendments because it removes the factual basis of the jurisdictional requirement
from the jury’s consideration. As De Leon concedes, however, we have repeatedly
upheld the constitutionality of the MDLEA in the face of these arguments. See,
e.g., United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182, 1187–88 (11th Cir. 2016),
Campbell, 743 F.3d at 809–12; United States v. Rendon, 354 F.3d 1320, 1324–28
(11th Cir. 2003); United States v. Tinoco, 304 F.3d 1088, 1108–12 (11th Cir.
2002).
In Campbell, for example, we rejected each of the arguments De Leon raises
on appeal. See 743 F.3d at 809–12. We held that (1) the MDLEA is a valid
exercise of Congress’s power under the Felonies Clause as applied to offenses
3
Case: 17-10603 Date Filed: 10/30/2017 Page: 4 of 4
without a nexus to the United States, id. at 810; (2) a conviction under the MDLEA
does not violate a defendant’s right to due process under the Fifth Amendment
even when the offense lacks such a nexus, id. at 812; and (3) the Fifth and Sixth
Amendment do not require a jury to determine whether extraterritorial jurisdiction
exists under the MDLEA, id. at 809. See also Cruickshank, 837 F.3d at 1188 (“In
Campbell, we reaffirmed that Congress did not exceed its authority by enacting the
MDLEA; we determined that no jurisdictional nexus was required under the
MDLEA; and we concluded that convictions under the MDLEA do not violate the
Due Process Clause of the Constitution.”).
“Under the prior precedent rule, we are bound to follow a prior binding
precedent unless and until it is overruled by this court en banc or by the Supreme
Court.” United States v. Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir. 2008)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Because De Leon’s arguments are foreclosed
by binding precedent, we affirm his convictions. His arguments are preserved for
purposes of further review.
AFFIRMED.
4