[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 27 2000
THOMAS K. KAHN
No. 98-4374 CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 96-534-CR-SM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BLADIMIR DEVILA, AVERY LIGHTBORNE,
JURGEN PRECIADO, RAULDINO RIVERA,
CESAR VALLECILLA-ORBIO,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
(June 27, 2000)
Before COX, HILL and MESKILL*, Circuit Judges.
_______________________
*Honorable Thomas J. Meskill, U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
In 1996, defendants/appellants Jurgen Preciado, Bladimir Devila, Rauldino
Rivera, Cesar Vallecilla-Orobio and Avery Lightborne were indicted by a federal
grand jury in Miami, Florida with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
marijuana, while crewmembers on board the vessel “Marbella II”, a vessel subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 46 U.S.C. App. §§ (a), (j), and (g)
(Count I); and possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 46 U.S.C.
App. §§ (a) and (g), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count II).
After a ten-day jury trial in 1997, the jury returned guilty verdicts against all
five defendants/appellants on both counts charged. Defendant/appellant Rivera filed
post-trial motions for judgment of acquittal (Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 29), new trial (Fed.
R. Crim. Proc. 33) and arrest of judgment (Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 34) on the basis that
the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the United States had
jurisdiction over the vessel at issue, Marbella II.1
In a thoughtful, well-reasoned, twenty-four (24) page opinion dated January 13,
1998, the district court denied all post-trial motions. Final judgments and
1
Defendant/appellant Rivera’s motion was adopted by defendants/appellants Lightborne,
Vallecilla-Orobio and Preciado in three separate orders. Defendant/appellant Devila filed a separate
motion for judgment of acquittal and a separate motion for new trial. In his motion for judgment
of acquittal, defendant/appellant Devila stated that he also wished to adopt defendant/appellant
Rivera’s motion.
2
commitment orders were entered one month later. The defendants/appellants appeal
from these final orders.
The only issue raised upon appeal that merits discussion is the same issue
addressed in defendants’/appellants’ post-trial motions, which is, whether the
government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the United States had
jurisdiction over the vessel Marbella II.2 For the reasons stated in Sections I and II of
the district court order of January 13, 1998, by the Honorable Stanley Marcus, then
district judge, denying defendants’/appellants’ post-trial motions, which sections are
attached hereto as an appendix, the defendants’/appellants’ final judgments of
conviction and commitment orders are AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.
2
All remaining issues raised are devoid of merit and affirmed without opinion. See 11th Cir. R.
36-1.
3